[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    ``I TOLD YOU SO''--WHITE HOUSE MEMO LAYS GROUNDWORK FOR COERCION

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Associated Press broke a 
story that should take no one by surprise. The concern expressed on 
this floor as we debated reforming the Hatch Act was that without 
protection for Federal employees, a sitting President could coerce his 
appointees to contribute to his campaign.
  Today, we see from a wire story that the White House has laid the 
groundwork for the kind of coercion we predicted.
  A memo dated May 2 from White House Counsel Abner Mikva and addressed 
to ``Heads of all All Agencies and Departments''--a memo written on 
official White House stationery, states that the Hatch Act Reform of 
1993 ``provided that civilian executive branch employees are no longer 
prohibited from making a political contribution to the reelection 
campaign committee of an incumbent President.''
  The memo then asks the agency heads to share the information with 
employees inside their agencies. Frankly, Mr. President, I find this 
absolutely outrageous, and believe that this memo could be seen as 
setting up a coercive situation for executive branch civilian 
employees--something I warned against when we considered the so-called 
reform of the Hatch Act.
  The purpose of the Hatch Act was straightforward--to protect Federal 
employees from just this type of pressure. I fought tooth and nail 
against the repeal of provisions in the Hatch Act for just this reason. 
I find it interesting that of all of the changes made to the Hatch Act, 
contributing to the reelection campaign committee of an incumbent 
President is the change they chose to highlight. This memo is a glaring 
example of the abuses that can occur without the protection of the 
Hatch Act.
  When the White House asks agency and department heads to tell their 
employees that they may contribute to their boss' reelection, that 
clearly can be seen as coercion. Those employees may feel that their 
continued employment depends on contributing. Furthermore, that this 
was sent out on official White House stationary makes things even 
worse.
  What is an employee to think when he or she receives this 
information--this narrow information--concerning the changes to the 
Hatch Act All the changes were highlighted by the media when the act 
was reformed. Certain, Federal employees kept themselves abreast of the 
news. ``So why,'' one would have to ask, ``would the highest levels at 
the White House use official stationary to direct attention to only one 
of several changes in the law?''
  ``Is it because the President wants to remind me that I serve at this 
leisure--and if I don't contribute, I may not serve?'' As Ann McBride, 
president of Common Cause says, ``There's just no way that a message 
comes from the White House and people don't feel some sense of implicit 
coercion.''
  This is unfair to our Federal employees. At a time when the President 
is seeking to build goodwill and esteem among those who work in the 
bureaucracy, he shouldn't be strapping them with the bill for his 
reelection campaign.


                          ____________________