ABC's Raddatz Misunderstands Laws Regarding Soldiers' Political Participation

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
By Ken Shepherd | April 8, 2008 - 11:10 ET

NewsBusters.org file photo of Raddatz, MarthaABC White House reporter Martha Raddatz (file photo at right), formerly that network's Pentagon correspondent, is clueless when it comes to federal law regarding U.S. military personnel and what they can and cannot say publicly about their politics, bloggers Richard Gardner and James Joyner argue in an April 8 post at Outside the Beltway.

Gardner was prompted to flesh out his strongly-worded complaint by an April 7 Raddatz article at ABCNews.com entitled "Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops.":

Why not “Government Employees Cannot Participate in Partisan Political Activity”? Or how about government employees are not allowed to state who they support politically? How about government employees are NOT allowed to vote? How about UNION government employees are not allowed to vote?

Gardner went on to quote an excerpt in which Raddatz equated servicemen expressing "their personal endorsements" -- that is telling people for whom they plan to vote -- to engaging "in partisan political activity" which "the military is not supposed" to do.

Gardner called Raddatz on the absurdity of her statement:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Substitute the sub-class of government employees with members of the military and you see a First Amendment fight in the making. Somehow this reporter got the idea that military members are neutered politically. Um, no. Joining the military does NOT mean you support the ruling party, nor are you a Republican.

I’ve rewritten what follows about 20 times to be objective. The bigotry in the reporting above stands alone – though I doubt the author Martha Raddatz understands the grave insult she has made.

OTB blogger/editor James Joyner added an update in which he cited the legal opinion of an Army JAG officer about what military folks can and cannot do in terms of expressing political opinion. Simply put, Raddatz needs to do her homework:

As to the legal issues, uniformed military personnel operate under different rules than the civil service. The Fort Gordon, Georgia JAG has written a good synopsis:

[...]

Soldiers on Active Duty May:

1. Register, vote, and express their opinions on political candidates and issues, but not as representatives of the Armed Forces;

2. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as spectators, however, they may not attend: (a) in uniform, (b) during duty hours, (c) when violence is likely to result, or (d) when their activities constitute a breach of law and order;

3. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, but not to other members of the Armed Forces on active duty or employees of the Federal Government, and subject to the following:

a. 18 U.S.C. § 607 prohibits anyone “receiving any salary or compensation for services from money derived from the Treasury of the United States” to solicit a political contribution from any other such person;

b. 18 U.S.C. § 603 prohibits officers and employees of the Federal Government, and anyone “receiving salary or compensation for service from money derived from the Treasury of the United States” from making a political contribution to any other such person who is the “employer or employing authority” of the contributor;

1). This prohibits both contributions to the individual and to the individual’s campaign committee, but does not prohibit contributions to political parties;

2). In 1991, the Counsel to the President issued an opinion that this statute “may prohibit any Federal employee from contributing to the authorized campaign committee of the President;”

4. May encourage other military members to vote;

5. Serve as an election official, if such service (a) is not in uniform, (b) does not interfere with military duties, and (c) has the prior approval of the installation commander;

6. Sign a petition for legislative action or to place a candidate’s name on the ballot, but only in the soldier’s personal capacity;

7. Write a letter to the editor expressing personal views, and place bumper stickers on cars (but not large banners or posters).

Soldiers on Active Duty May Not:

1. Use their official authority or influence for interfering with an election, soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue, or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others;

2. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions;

3. Write and publish partisan political articles that solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate, speak before partisan political gatherings, or participate in partisan political radio or television shows;

4. Serve in any capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club;

5. Distribute partisan political literature or conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group;

6. Use contemptuous words against the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretaries of the military departments, Defense, or Transportation, and the Governors or legislatures of any state or territory where the soldier is on duty;

7. Engage in fund-raising activities for partisan political causes on military reservations or in Federal offices or facilities;

8. Attend partisan political events as official representatives of the Armed Forces.

RELATED: See Brent Baker's earlier blog post on Raddatz's April 7 "World News" story here.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Hatch Act...

Ken,

For those who wish to study the entire Hatch Act...

http://www.osc.gov/h...

I hope everyone on NB who is a part of the Federal Gov't isn't in violation of the Hatch Act. Don't worry, though, it's not likely the Hatch Act will be enforced against any conservative GOP types.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius, who are you

Syrius, who are you referring to as "everyone on NB who is a part of the Federal Gov't"?

 

This stooge....

...is comical at best-but scary at the same time. If there is a large number of people who think like he/she does this country is headed for disaster.

Prime example of the failings of Govt. run schools...

Hatch Act

That's a good link, it agrees with the article above. Just like the military they can't do things while "in uniform" while having the same rights when not "in uniform".

Hatch Act: Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May participate in Partisan Political Activity

These federal and D.C. employees may-

  • be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
  • register and vote as they choose
  • assist in voter registration drives
  • express opinions about candidates and issues
  • contribute money to political organizations
  • attend political fundraising functions
  • attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
  • join and be an active member of a political party or club
  • sign nominating petitions
  • campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal
    ordinances
  • campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
  • make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
  • distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
  • hold office in political clubs or parties

These federal and D.C. employees may not-

  • use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
  • solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
  • solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by
    federal labor or other employee organizations)
  • be candidates for public office in partisan elections
  • engage in political activity while:
    • on duty
    • in a government office
    • wearing an official uniform
    • using a government vehicle
  • wear partisan political buttons on duty

 

Again ...

I recall during the late 1990s the military was strongly [warned] ... as in 'there WILL be consequences' ... against making ANY comments regarding then [troubled] Pres. Clinton ... in any capacity.

 

And then there was the break-neck attempt to NOT count the military votes in the whole 2000 Florida election crap ... by the democrats.

 

When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks

Of Course

This stuff also applies to General Petraeus. If he were to act as an advocate for the evil Bush, he'd be in deep doo-doo.

The Leftists ignore all of these criminal codes and military rules, however. After all, they all went to law school at Moe Howard University.

Lefties

The lefties in the State Department and the General Accounting Office surely never read the The Hatch Act. Even if they did, they'd ignore it. "Rules are made to be broken"; it's the "liberal" way.

BTW, that ABC article concerning the "opinions" of our troops is a hoot. You have to laugh at blatant bias sometimes. "Liberals" are true ignoramuses.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

"lefties"?

Ivy,

Are absolutely sure of your statements?

http://video.marketw...

How about this tidbit from last year...

http://www.govexec.c...

...goes against your comment, "The lefties in the State Department and the General Accounting Office
surely never read the The Hatch Act. Even if they did, they'd ignore
it. "Rules are made to be broken"; it's the "liberal" way."
You might want to rephrase it to the "conservative" way.

By the way, the troops were interviewed and asked their opinion. They weren't up on stage promoting any candidate. Go Cheney! The report showed a McCain backer as part of the interview. What's the big deal?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Read

The State Department and other government agencies are loaded with lefties. Have been for decades. If you refuse to educate yourself about it, you do so at your own peril. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

isia... Absolutely! To

isia...

Absolutely! To all of your post.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Hi, BT

Thankyou. These lefties are, as we used to say, "a real peice of work". Keep up the good fight; you make a difference.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Pointing out the error of your ways.

Ivy,

I proved you were wrong in your blanket assessment. Your assumption was on "the lefties in the State Department and the General Accounting Office" by the way. You're now saying without proof, just your feelings, in the span of 7 plus years of Bush's presidency that "lefties" permeate the State Dept. and the GAO? Wow, that's a stretch even for me. Do you understand how Political appointees and their minions create change in the different departments over time? Especially over 8 years?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrious

You proved nothing. Please read more.You are puffed up with your own ignorance. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

now saying without proof,

now saying without proof, just your feelings, in the
span of 7 plus years of Bush's presidency that "lefties" permeate the
State Dept. and the GAO?
-Syrius

Try this, Syrius:

Backstabbing at Foggy Bottom

Do you have any reason to believe that those "career diplomats" have stopped trying to interfere?

As for your

Do you understand how Political appointees and their minions create
change in the different departments over time? Especially over 8 years?

There is no "changing of the guard" with every new President. A lot of State Department officials serve three or four Presidents and are well-entrenched. As such, they develop their own "policy preferences" and are not shy about opposing a President who doesn't agree.

mb... Just my two cents

mb...

Just my two cents here real quick, I thought o f posting something like yours back to Sy today, but decided I was in too good of a mood... why wreck it...lol.

What I am trying to say is...Thanks you did it for me.

Sometimes we feel like responding or playing around a little sometimes... we don't....hehehee..

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Bush didn't clean house

Bush did not clean house like Clinton did when he took office. I think he really desired to work with people and found out the hard way that it's tough to work with your enemies. More people should have been replaced in all departments than just those Gonzales got rid of and it should have been done years ago. So, yes there are more liberals in various places.

you're off base as usual

I am a Federal retiree (25 years) and a military veteran (8 years). Soldiers are not allowed, without specific permission from command, to do interviews in uniform that relate to politics or political positions. An interview for radio or TV in uniform can only be cleared by command. If it goes on the air and they are in uniform and it is political they cannot participate without permission. Period.

As to Civil Circus, we are not allowed to participate in ANY public manner. We can't even be poll judges because you have to declare a party affiliation to do so.

As to the State Departement, after serving in several foreign countries, and having a degree in Political Science, I can tell you without a doubt that State is rife with socialists and limosine liberals. <sarc>They even have a few token conservatives hidden around here and there. </sarc>

Wizard, based on Syrius'

Wizard, based on Syrius' interpretation of the Hatch Act, it appears you are incorrect. There was no stage, so you must acquit. Apparently them being in uniform and on active duty are ancillary issues. I have a feeling the soldiers will get a nice reminder of how to properly address these situations in the future so they avoid the sock puppetry by our objective MSM.

The military rules closely

The military rules closely follow the rules for all government employees. That would mean the Plames were clearly violating the rules along with Democrat activists. Only Repuiblicans are required to follow the rules in Democrats eyes.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

The Dept. of Justice...

kg,

From what I have gathered-

"The Attorney General of the United States...is to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by
the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of
any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their
departments." The workload quickly became too much for one person,
necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney
General. With an increasing amount of work to be done, private
attorneys were retained to work on cases."

http://www.usdoj.gov/02organizations/ 

All federal employees are to follow the law. If it's purely partisan as you have suggested then why not an increase of violations against the Democrats? According to your stream of logic, the Republicans should feel free & unencumbered and the Democrats should be crossing their t's and dotting their i's and staying within the lines, correct?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Logic

Logic? Ha! What a laugh to hear that from the left.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Ivy...

Ivy,

Take a breath before you continue to drink the Kool-Aid, again. This isn't a chugging contest. Is logic something strange to you? I can tell by your recent postings, your reading comprehension has faltered. My comment was directed to KG.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

another smary troll heard from

Sillyass... er, Syrius, it must be great to be such a superior being. I particularly like how you and all your elitist lefty buddies made the USSR such a wonderland of happy smiling faces because of your god-like powers of intelligence, erudition, and logic. Leftyism means knowing that you are a legend in your own mind.

My comment

My comment was directed to you, Syrious. And be careful when you talk about my reading skills or writing skills. That's a big misake on your part.

NENER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Pssst...

Ivy,

If you were to 'right click' your mouse, you'd see a small window with a 'spell check' on the bottom. Your argument about writing skills is undermined by the misspelling of words. This public service announcement brought to you by the one you're trying to attack.

This comment was directed at you.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

spelling?

you're criticizing SPELLING? on an internet forum?

that's moronic.

It's kinda funny though for

It's kinda funny though for someone to state that you shouldn't question their writing skills, and in that sentence there's a spelling error. :-)

Yeah, Bal...roflmao!

Bal,

I don't think he's drinking the Kool-Aid but the new sake named "misake". Actually, it looks like he misspelled it on purpose and a few other words...

   ;-) 

Syrius


 

I'm not an English major,

I'm not an English major, but I think your "right click" button missed a pronoun when addressing Ivy up above:

"Are absolutely sure of your statements?"

The world truly is round, huh Syrius? This type of dialogue gives me severe tired-head.

Laughable

Whenever you have to resort to slamming one's spelling, it is a very clear indication that you lost the argument. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.