Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Government Employees Could Be Fired For A Hobby

Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise at 2:03 PM on April 22, 2008.


If you blog on your own time, what business is it to your job?
sonyvaiopinknotebooklaptop

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Julia Eisman Stand Up for Health Care

Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Steven Rosenfeld AlterNet

Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
Heather Gehlert AlterNet

Federal employees could be fired for blogging about politics with their personal computers, on their own time, Stephen Barr reports:

Blogging about politics at work falls into the don't-do category, but

blogging from home may also get a federal employee in trouble.

Presidential campaign Web sites, for example, encourage supporters

to create blogs on the site to advocate the candidate's positions. They

also usually carry a link for campaign donations, and that can be

trouble for a federal employee, even when using a home computer. The

OSC may view the donate button as soliciting for political

contributions, another no-no under the Hatch Act, and set off an

investigation. [WaPo]

This passage is part of a longer story about how the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has decided crack down on political activities of federal employees in advance of the election.

The Hatch Act restricts the political activities of federal, state, and local government officials. The rules are very complicated. Presidential employees confirmed by the senate can even engage in political activities on government time, in government facilities, as long as these aren't paid for with government money. However, appointees must not compel their subordinates to play along. 

Since the beginning of the Bush administration, the definition of electioneering has been very narrowly indeed, at least when it comes to Republicans helping Republicans. Karl Rove was allowed to make the rounds of 20 federal agencies, delivering regular PowerPoint presentations about how bureaucrats could help get Republicans elected. This went on for years. In fairness the OSC did investigate some of these allegations, but neither Rove nor the senior government employees who participated in these briefings has been sanctioned.

The highest-profile targets for Hatch investigation, Rove, Ken Mehlman, and Scott Jennings, all resigned before any action was taken. Proximately, Jennings was a casualty of the U.S. Attorney scandal. It's not clear how much influence the Hatch Act investigations by OSC and Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee had on the timing of Rove's exit.

According to Barr's story, government employees could be fined, suspended, or even fired for blogging at home, on their own time if their blogging takes place on a website associated with a presidential candidate. (Public policy grad student Isaac explains that Barr is talking specifically about employees who blog using software sponsored by presidential campaigns, such as McCain MySpace or MyBarack Obama.)

The law hasn't caught up to new technologies. It's not clear whether government employees are allowed to "friend" a candidate on Facebook, or leave a partisan comment on someone else's blog from the privacy of their own homes. If the problem is links soliciting campaign contributions, what happens if a federal employee posts non-electioneering content in a diary at DailyKos or some other site that has electioneering ads and links?

I predict that petty and tangential Hatch Act investigations will be disproportionately directed at Democratic-leaning government employees in the run-up to the elections.  (Barr notes that Hatch Act enforcements have been on the rise since 2000.) 

This is an empirical question, and I hope that I'm wrong. Maybe close scrutiny during this period will deter Hatch Act abuse.

If you are a government employee of any political persuasion who has been investigated or disciplined for blogging about politics outside of work, please email me. I want to hear your story.

Digg!

Tagged as: blogging, labor

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.


Sarah Palin's Reckless Approach to Health Care
Just like John McCain, Palin is putting private market interests before consumers.
Post by Julia Eisman. September 7, 2008.
Election Observer Arrested in Arizona
Will cops crack down on election observers in November?
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. September 7, 2008.
Will Sarah Palin Have An Effect on the Women's Vote?
A recent survey shows mixed results.
Post by Heather Gehlert. September 7, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I Guess
Posted by: JSquercia on Apr 22, 2008 3:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess the Administration's wiretaps must have revealed an OVERWHELMING choice of the Democrats amongst Government Employees .
It would almaost be laughable were it not so serious . This Administration that made the DOJ an arm of the Republican Party is concerned about Federal employees violating the Hatch Act by blogging from home

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

can you spell
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Apr 22, 2008 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gestapo?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yup. Posted by: Prairie Waif
My wife is a Federal employee
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 23, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was told at work that she wasn't allowed to have a bumper sticker on her car or a yard sign - and that it was "problematic" fer her spouse to have a bumper sticker on his (my) vehicle! This was at a special meeting that had been called for the purpose.

Considering that every year when the COLA pay adjustments are made, they come with a letter strongly implying that they are a personal gift awarded by the munificence of Bush (rather than provided by congress) it is pretty rank. No mention, btw, that Bush arbitrarily reduced the amount this year to 2.2% - less than the inflation rate - or that the only actual sacrifice any citizens were asked to make - to pay for Iraq and Katrina (except - huge exception - for the soldiers) was pay reductions for Federal employees.

This crap violates the intent and spirit of the Hatch Act - and incidentally makes me furious. Have pretty much been furious since this administration performed it's coup d'etat in 2000 - so that's nothing new.

As a matter of fact, considering the electioneering that has been done from day one by this administration, I would say that this is a looking-glass interpretation of the law similar to the civil rights division of justice becoming an instrument of voter suppression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hatch Act Violations
Posted by: Jo1028 on Apr 23, 2008 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration has made Hatch Act violations a part of their basic policy when it comes to grantees. For example, the organizations receiving Abstinence-only funding have routinely used those funds to lobby federal, state and local officials-and in some states have used the money to set up and train grassroots groups to infiltrate and take over local precinct and party meetings-The same is true for the so-called 'faith-based' grantees. When these activities have been reported, they have been ignored. So it's really ironic hypocrisy to suggest that federal employees might be fired for blogging on their own time-it would only happen if they're blogging for Democrats!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hatch Act Violations Posted by: notmom
Success!!
Posted by: talkville on Apr 23, 2008 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The process is nearing completion in the Private Sector; now it's time for the Public Sector. This process is grounded in the philosophy of 'At Will' employment. A good case study would be the State of Texas.

Who's Will? The Corporate-State.

"Employee" -- One who is used, utilized, made use of; 'compensated' as determined by the "Employer" - he or she who makes use of, utilizes or otherwise exploits the "Employee".

At the pleasure of the President; at the pleasure of the CEO.

Those whose Will is gratified and served to the most intimate recesses are feeling: successful; it took them a long while, but they're just about There. It takes a strong, determined and persevering Will to Force and Coerce a horizontal relation into a vertical one.

The rest of us? Screwed and Scared and Scattered in multifarious directions daily. Just the way they Will. Interesting times of Confucian Proportions!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ramifications only come to those
Posted by: Quannah on Apr 23, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who are involved in Democratic Party politics. That's what the Republics call "fair."

Since when is exercising your right to free speech grounds for losing your job, your raise, your position at work at any federal agency? Somebody needs to challenge this in court. Hatch Act my ass!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Outrageous But Not Surprising
Posted by: macdon1 on Apr 23, 2008 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What can we expect from the leadership that brought us the abolition of Habeas Corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act? I have been watching these monsters since the time of Ronald Ray-gun, the guy who believed the government shouldn't be in the business of housing people, public education, etc.
In case no one noticed, the heinous Bush administration featured many of the same cast of characters. These critters have had their agenda out there for all to see but most people were blind. One can only hope the new election will see a change in direction but personally I think it is pretty much too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

loss of freedom
Posted by: Dianka on Apr 29, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, isn't it? As I was growing up, our government constantly berated communism, yet is now adopting the very worst of the totalitarian policies that they once condemned.

We've seen a steady intrusion of government, via employers for example, in our lives, with employers increasingly being able to dictate what citizens do in their time off (i.e., firing people who smoke, are gay, engage in progressive politics, etc.). But the bottom line is that this can only happen when the people allow it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]