Unanswered Questions

Was the White House campaign briefing at the GSA a one-time deal?

THE UPROAR over fired U.S. attorneys and missing White House e-mails has crowded out attention to another matter of concern: the campaign briefing that White House political aide J. Scott Jennings provided to political appointees at the General Services Administration. This episode raises some obvious questions: Were similar presentations made to other government officials on government property during business hours? Did Mr. Jennings clear this practice with the White House counsel's office -- whether it was a one-time deal or part of a series? Did that office consider whether the briefings complied with the Hatch Act, which regulates the political activity of federal government employees? Does it believe Mr. Jennings's briefing was appropriate?

We've been asking the White House these questions, starting 14 days ago. We haven't gotten any answers; the press office says that it's "working on" providing answers but can't say when or even whether they will be provided. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, posed similar questions in a March 29 letter.

Unpleasant as these questions might be for the White House, we believe that they are legitimate and deserve answers. A memorandum prepared for Mr. Waxman's committee by the Congressional Research Service concludes that a briefing such as the one at the GSA could well run afoul of the Hatch Act, which limits the political activities that government employees, even political appointees, can conduct on government time or government property.

In the briefing, delivered to other GSA offices by videoconference, Mr. Jennings presented a 28-slide PowerPoint analysis of the November election results and the prospects for 2008, identifying the 20 most vulnerable Democratic House members. According to six people present, GSA administrator Lurita A. Doan asked the staff what could be done "to help our candidates." Ms. Doan says that she doesn't recall making such a statement.

The Congressional Research Service concluded: "A 'PowerPoint' or other presentation which might arguably be merely 'informational' in certain contexts may raise concerns under Hatch Act interpretations when the sponsor and presenter is closely affiliated/identified with a partisan political campaign, invitations are directed only to 'political' employees of a department, and the objectives and agenda of the program appear to have partisan slant." Preparing for the session, Mr. Jennings's assistant underscored the sensitive nature of the information: "It is a close hold and we're not supposed to be e-mailing it around."

There's appropriate leeway, as the Hatch Act recognizes, for political appointees to be involved in partisan activities; there's more leeway for White House aides such as Mr. Jennings and Senate-confirmed officials such as Ms. Doan than for other political appointees. But conducting political briefings on government time, in government offices, using government resources, suggests a disturbing obliviousness to the notion that government should be used to the benefit of all the people, not one political party. The White House refusal to provide answers serves only to raise suspicions that this was not just a single misstep.