.@RepCummings responds to @US_OSC’s disturbing new Hatch Act guidance: “The new guidance is so out of step with OSC’s past interpretations of the law that it raises concerns about whether OSC itself is engaging in inappropriate political activity.” https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2018-12-07.EEC%20to%20Kerner%20re.OSC%20guidance%20with%20Edits.pdf …
It said “criticizing a policy position before an election makes the same speech that would be allowed any other time suddenly become prohibited political speech. The example provided in the guidance is the Trump Admin’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.”
“OSC’s guidance is wrong. There is no time that criticizing a policy of the sitting President or any other politician is a violation of the Hatch Act.”
“It is only when an employee advocates for or against the success or failure of a candidate or political party that it implicates the Hatch Act.”
“Resist is a term that can be used in many different contexts. OSC’s guidance assumes that using a generic term that is not used as an official campaign slogan for any current partisan political candidate is political activity.”
“Just because the term is sometimes used to reference a political philosophy does not make it political activity” for purposes of the Hatch Act definition of the term “political activity.”
You can follow @waltshaub.