Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, July 23, 1993 TAG: 9309050311
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Civil servants ought to be able to work for candidates and causes of their choice just as other Americans can, say the lawmakers. That's only, well, civil.
And so the Senate has now voted 68-31 for a bill to liberalize the 1939 Hatch Act that, it's said, has been trampling on the First Amendment rights of bureaucrats for, lo, these many decades.
In March, the House passed even more liberating legislation, and, assuming differences between the two versions are resolved, President Clinton is expected to sign the bill.
Pardon us for not rooting, but we don't believe this is really about freedom of speech. It's more about the endless money-chase in Washington.
There probably are ways to increase federal workers' opportunities for political expression without opening the back door to abuse, and these deserve consideration. But many Congress members seem more interested in finding new sources of campaign contributions and of cheap laborers for re-election campaigns.
The Senate's "rights" bill would permit almost all federal civil-service employees to hold office in political parties, distribute campaign literature and solicit votes for candidates, organize and help operate political phone banks, organize and attend political meetings and publicly endorse candidates.
The House version would also empower them to solicit public contributions for federal employees' political-action committees and unions. These groups, doubtless, would want to share these funds with their good friends in Congress.
Politicking would be limited to federal employees' off-duty hours, of course. And coercion would still be frowned on, of course.
But suppose your neighbor happens to work for the Internal Revenue Service, and he asks you for a donation at about the time you're worried that your tax return may be audited. You going to say no?
Or suppose you happen to work for the federal government here in Virginia. Suppose one of our esteemed congressmen - who could put in a word in Washington to help you get a raise or get fired - asks you to "volunteer" your time and money to help him get re-elected. You going to say no?
The House bill, but not the Senate's, would allow federal employees themselves to run for political office.
The Senate bill, but not the House's, also keeps current bans against political activities for top-level bureaucrats and employees of most law enforcement and national-security agencies.
These differences are significant. But both bills would send 3 million civil servants - whose service ought not be tainted by partisanship - right onto the front lines of unvarnished political toadying and connivance in Washington's money games.
At a time when the public is demanding political reforms, including campaign-finance reform, does Congress really want to hatch a scheme that invites more corruption and abuse?
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB