Coffman's Office Responds to Questions of Legality

8 thoughts on “Coffman’s Office Responds to Questions of Legality”

1. ….the court cases permit restrictions on “job-related speech of public employees.”  Assuming that is true (I haven’t read the cases), I don’t see how the cases permit the gov’t to forbid its employees from contributing to political campaigns (which was the CCEG’s beef).  How does writing a personal check, presumably on personal time, constitute “job-related speech?”

   But maybe I’m missing the boat here.

   Log in to Reply

2. Contrary to Mr. Tee’s assertions, there is nothing inconsistent in CCEG’s position. Secy. Coffman’s new policy is both “too little, too late” and it is unconstitutional in part.  We never said it is “too strict.”  The policy is “too little, too late” because Secy. Coffman had every reason to know that Mr. Kopelman had conflicting outside business activities and yet he failed to ensure those activities ceased before Mr. Kopelman joined his staff.  Further, laws were already in place that prohibited Mr. Kopelman’s outside activities – Secy. Coffman just declined to enforce them.

   The policy is also unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits employees from making contributions to candidates and ballot issues.  The cases relied upon by Mr. Tee are totally off point.  The first case, United States Civil Service Commissions v. National Association of Letter Carriers AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973), was a constitutional challenge to section 9 of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C.S. В§ 7324(a)(2), which prohibited federal employees from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns.  The second case, United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 130 L.Ed.2d. 964 (1995) involved a challenge of a federal statute which prohibited federal employees from accepting compensation for making speeches or writing articles even when the speech had no connection with the employee’s official duties.  Neither case addresses a law or policy like Secy. Coffman’s that prohibits government employees from making any contributions to candidates or campaigns.

   Conversely, in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Supreme Court addressed an analogous situation.  Plaintiffs in that case challenged BCRA section 318, which prohibited minors from making any contributions to candidates and political parties.  Section 318 did not just limit the amount that minors could contribution; like Secy. Coffman’s policy, it barred contributions entirely.  The Court found the provision overinclusive and overbroad, and struck down the provision as unconstitutional.

   Not even the Federal Hatch Act prohibits public employees from making contributions; in fact, it expressly allows it.  According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, government employees under the Hatch Act may:

   * run for public office in nonpartisan elections
   * campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
   * actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
   * contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions

   For more information about the Hatch Act you can go to the OSC site.

   Log in to Reply

   1. It is embarrassing to think that Ms. Taylor is a licensed attorney, she cannot spell cases correctly in her press release and then switches the case she is using as precendent midstream.

      She clearly went to Lexis and pulled up the synopsis of each of the cases that Mr. Tee was citing and failed to read the relevant portions.  If she had done so she would have found out that both those cases cite other cases which explain that government employees may be held to a different standard in relation to First Amendment speech.  Afterall their job is to enforce the laws enacted for the people.  For a person interested in ethics in government, it seems hypocritical that she would want state election workers to contribute to partisan candidates.  Seems unethical to me!

      If it is so blatantly unconstitutional then how does the State of Illinois get away with imposing the restriction (denial of contribution) on ALL state employees in statute and the State of Louisiana do the same in the state constitution?  Neither McConnell nor Buckley have an bearing on the policy implemented by Secretary Coffman.  Ms. Taylor only cites those two cases because they are the two most prevalant cases in campaign finance law and she loves headlines.

      Funny how she refused to withdraw her CORA request after the State Auditor agreed to audit the personnel matter (which state tax payers are paying for) and asked for all fees to be waived (again state tax payers pay for those copies and employees time in gathering materials).  Again, ethics?

      Go back to law school and move on to your next witch hunt Chantell…oh yeah, and pay those attorney’s fees that the ALJ ordered you to pay in the case that you supposedly set precedent in winning!

      Log in to Reply

      1. Gosh, Tate, it’s one thing to attack the logic of an argument on the blog, it’s another to write an out-and-out personal diatribe against someone!  Get a life already, and keep your personal vendettas to your self – the rest of us don’t really care!

         Log in to Reply

         1. There is no personal vendetta against anyone, just calling out the hypocracy and inaccuracy of CCEGs response.  If a person is going to attack a public official or his/her personnel the attack should be well founded.

            The number of negative press releases that CCEG regularly issues makes it seem as though there is some bitter personal vendetta there.  I am merely pointing out the obvious.

            Log in to Reply

3. All political leaders should be hiring competent, effective and efficient employees to perform the state’s business.  The employees should be doing their state assigned work while on the government clock or they should be fired.  An employee making $85,000.00 should be working long hard hours and not be involved in private or personal issues during that period.  The state is not in the business of providing political patronage. 

   Log in to Reply

4. The only way to get this behind you is to apologize and fire the guy who was selling voter lists. You can parse the law and win the legal battle. But with no apology your political career is over.

   Log in to Reply

5. Hello Pols,

   This is Mike Lawrence, a reporter for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. Contrary to the Pols statement above, Mike Coffman has spoken with the media about Dan Kopelman – we talked about the situation earlier this month.
   Read about it here:
   http://www2.steamboa…

   I realize that Steamboat is off the mainstream media circuit, and doesn’t match up circulation-wise with the metro dailies, but I think we should all take notice when elected officials are openly willing to discuss tough issues. It’s refreshing.

   Thanks,

   Mike Lawrence
   Reporter
   Steamboat Pilot & Today
   (970) 871-4203
   mlawrence@steamboatpilot.com

   Log in to Reply