Does it strike anyone else as asinine that a politically appointed White House staffer isn't supposed to make political comments?
Should a presidential adviser be forbidden from advocating for candidates and policies that bolster the president's ideas and initiatives?
If the recent controversy over Kellyanne Conway and the federal law known as the Hatch Act leaves you scratching your head in amazement, then congratulations. You are demonstrating a presence of common sense that is sorely lacking in the seat of American government.
Conway's official title is Counselor to the President. As such, she's often a surrogate for President Trump in public and media appearances. It defies all logic that such a high-level political appointee isn't supposed to make political statements. Yet it appears the Hatch Act does, indeed, call that a no-no.
Government employees at all levels are made to surrender a variety of constitutional rights when they go on the public payroll. Kentucky's state merit system law, KRS Chapter 18A, restricts many First Amendment rights of state workers. Yet Kentucky is wildly inconsistent in what certain public employees are allowed to do and not do. Public education employees are paid from the same pot of money as state workers, yet they have much more latitude in engaging in political activity. (But that's a subject for a future commentary.)
The federal Hatch Act was originally passed to ward of political favoritism in awarding of public works contracts back in the post-Depression days. Yet it's been expanded to ridiculous lengths. It now places federal restrictions on the ability of state and local employees to run for political office. And it muzzles politically appointed employees like Conway from speaking out on matters of politics that are intrinsically linked to the operation of their boss' office.
Conway and Trump are right to mock the recent recommendation that she be fired. It's beyond silly to think that a person in Conway's position, sent to speak on behalf of the president, should not be able to do exactly that.
There hasn't been a First Amendment challenge to the Hatch Act's restrictions on political speech or activity since 1973. And political speech was exactly what the First Amendment was enacted to guarantee and protect. Maybe Conway should file a challenge and relegate the more ridiculous provisions of the law to the scrap heap where they belong. It's good public policy to try to take politics out of projects. Telling political appointees that they can't discuss politics, not so much.
