With the Biden-Harris administration running the federal government as an extension of the Democratic National Committee, it’s no wonder that the Department of Health and Human Services pushed out what amounts to a pro-Kamala Harris political ad to potentially tens of millions of Medicare recipients
Now a complaint is urging the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and other federal employees ran afoul of an 85-year-old federal law that prohibits them from engaging in political campaigning on the job.
”The email was entirely political in both its purpose and language, it was sent to citizens who are Medicare recipients from an official government email address and from an official department,” asserts the complaint, filed Monday by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT). “This type of political advocacy from a government agency targeting citizens who interact with it is exactly the type of politicalization of government functions that the Hatch Act is designed to prevent.”
On Sept. 28, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent out an email to Medicare recipients praising Vice President Kamala Harris for her involvement in the absurdly named Inflation Reduction Act. Estimated to cost as much as $1.2 trillion, the package funds a host of leftist pet climate change projects and other initiatives. Massive government spending has sent inflation soaring.
The email on changes in Medicare prescription drug benefits, ostensibly written by President Joe Biden, proclaims that the “historic reforms are a result of the Inflation Reduction Act that I signed into law and that Vice President Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to secure.”
“Vice President Harris and I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege,” the email, described as a “sales pitch” for the Democrats’ presidential candidate, claims.
‘Inexcusable Breach of the Public’s Trust’
The 1939 Hatch Act, also known as the Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, restricts campaigning and other partisan politics while on duty.
“An employee may not use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election,” the federal law states.
While the president and vice president are not subject to the Hatch Act, federal bureaucrats are. Government employees presumably created and used taxpayer-funded resources to distribute the email, and Becerra presumably approved the email, the complaint alleges.
As the complaint notes, advisory opinions have clarified that “sending, or forwarding an email that is for or against a candidacy for President of the United States violates the Hatch Act if done while on duty, acting in official capacity, in a government building, or with government resources.”
The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust asserts that the email’s first two paragraphs reminding Medicare recipients of the upcoming open enrollment period was just a “thinly-veiled attempt to disguise the political nature of the email.”
“Even if there was a policy purpose in the first two paragraphs, the law does not allow any portion of the email to contain political content. The following eight paragraphs are an obvious political advertisement for Kamala Harris,” the complaint states.
The complaint argues that there was no need to note Harris’ limited involvement in the policy, and the use of a candidate’s name within 45 days of the election is an actionable violation of the Hatch Act. More egregious, the foundation states, is the fact that the email was blasted out unsolicited to as many as 67 million Americans who are Medicare enrollees.
“The shear size of the political advertisement here represents a severe and inexcusable breach of the public’s trust,” the complaint alleges.
Kendra Arnold, FACT’s executive director, called it “laughable” that the email praising the Democrat presidential candidate so close to an election would not be seen as a political ad.
“While a typical Hatch Act violation involves an elected official making a passing political reference during an appearance, the scope of this case is much greater because government data was used to send a blatant political message to potentially millions of unsuspecting Americans on the eve of an election,” Arnold said in a statement.
An Office of Special Counsel official told The Federalist that the independent agency has received the complaint but that he is unable to comment at this time.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to The Federalist’s requests for comment.
Biden Campaigner-in-Chief
Last month, the OSC announced that Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for his commander-in-chief before the DNC’s coup this past summer ended President Joe Biden’s reelection bid.
On Jan. 25, Del Toro, while on an official trip to England, told attendees at an event that he was “confident that the American people will step up to the plate come November and support President Biden for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief …” according to the Special Counsel report.
“The United States and the world need the mature leadership of President Biden. I did not support the President of the United States to become president, Commander-in-Chief, because I wanted a job. I supported him personally, because he is an individual of highest character, with the intelligence and the experience and the perseverance, to do the job, that not just the U.S. demands, but that the entire world, quite frankly, embraces,” the Navy secretary said, shattering the boundaries of the Hatch Act.
Del Toro then told Laura Kuenssberg on BBC News Sunday that he was worried former President Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination at the time, would be elected to another term in the White House. He again spoke of his support for Biden and voiced his opposition to Trump.
The OSC report notes the Navy secretary had attended at least three Hatch Act briefings before he made the official visit to England. He was directly advised what he could and could not say in his official capacity.
“Secretary Del Toro’s statements with overt reference to the election conveyed electoral support for one candidate and opposition to another candidate, and thus, constituted political activity,” the report states. “Accordingly, because he made these statements while acting in his official capacity, he violated the Hatch Act.”
The special counsel wrote that the “secretary’s refusal to take responsibility for the violation is troubling.”
Who’s responsible for disciplining Del Toro? The same president whose political praises the Navy secretary sang in England while he was violating the Hatch Act.
‘Brazen Politicized Use of Government Power’
Biden is also in charge of what election integrity watchdogs have described as “Bidenbucks.” The Democrat signed an executive order early in his tenure requiring federal agencies to work with states and leftist third-party groups on a taxpayer-funded get-out-the-vote drive targeting liberal voters.
“The Biden-Harris administration kept most details for implementing the order secret, but the act itself was a brazen politicized use of government power. Making little secret of the political goals, the federal agencies aimed to boost voting by immigrants, inmates, social service recipients, and other perceived Democratic Party constituent groups,” the Daily Signal’s Fred Lucas recently wrote.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take a challenge from Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers who argue the use of taxpayer resources for the voter registration and mobilization drive is unconstitutional.
For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
Comments are closed.