Kate Nash must have had to make a tough decision; what's worse, using a kid in your campaign commercial without first clearing it with the parents, or using tax payer's money and elected office to conduct campaign activities?
Understandably, Nash told the story where she picked it up, with a parent upset about their kid being exploited by a politician without even seeking parental consent.
But as noted by mzannes, the first reader to leave a comment on Nash's online version of her story,
"The Land Office spokeswoman Kristin Haase is on the state payroll, talking about her boss' CAMPAIGN ELECTION SNAFFU in her state office on a state phone paid by my taxes, and no doubt was contacted during state office hours for which she was paid by my tax dollars. Should be a law against that."
I believe there is, the Hatch Act, which explicitly prohibits government employees from the following:
-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
-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
And that's the angle that the New Mexican's Ann Constable and Steve Terrell picked up on in their story, Political ad stuns unwitting participants in this morning's paper, asking the spokeswoman for the Land Commissioner's office, Kristin Haase, if she had made arrangements to have the ad shot while on government time.
Haase told Constable Terrell, she had made arrangements for the partisan add to be shot on her day off, supposedly aware that conducting partisan activity on government time would be illegal.
However, the articles indicate Haase may not have made her "off duty" status clear when contacting the school, allowing school officials to operate under the assumption that she was acting in her capacity as a state employee on behalf of the Land Commissioner's Office, instead of a candidate seeking reelection.
According to the principal, "Lyons gave some surplus state computers to the school last year and made a film about the donation " (presumably non-partisan film promoting education and the role of the land office.) As Constable Terrell writes, "when [Lyon's] office asked to return," the principal thought it was to shoot more video footage "promoting education," not a candidate.
Is this a big deal? Yes. Not because Haase falls under the Hatch act, which she may or may not, and not because the act states:
"An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual."
This is a big deal because it's only the most recent example of Lyons using his office and tax payer's dollars to conduct partisan electoral activity.
Be sure to pick up the Tribune this afternoon for what I hope is a killer followup story from Nash. This story has legs.
Technorati Tags: Blogs, Coal, corruption, Elections, Energy, Land Commissioner, media, New Mexico, news, oil, Patrick Lyons, Politics, GOP, Republicans
Comments