Do you have to run for Senate to get a White House job?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
With the job market under scrutiny as the nation comes out of the recession, a different type of job recruiting has moved into the political spotlight. Here is a guide to what the Obama administration did or didn’t do in two Democratic primaries, and the political fallout.
What happened on Thursday?
For the second time in about a week, the White House acknowledged that a possible job was on the table for Democratic challengers seeking to unseat incumbent senators in heated primaries. The White House insists there was no wrongdoing, but Republicans have been vocal that there should be an independent probe.
Which states are in play?
In Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary, the White House strongly backed Sen. Arlen Specter, who was successfully challenged by Rep. Joe Sestak. In Colorado, the White House supports Sen. Michael Bennet, who is being challenged for his seat by Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in the Aug. 10 primary.
What did the White House do?
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Clinton to discuss an unpaid position with Sestak if Sestak decided to not challenge Specter. Sestak has said he quickly rejected Clinton’s overture.
Jim Messina, deputy White House chief of staff, talked about three positions with Romanoff, who had applied for an administration post during the transition, well before he decided to seek the Senate seat. Romanoff said he was no longer interested in an administration job and none was ever offered.
So if no jobs were ever offered, what’s the big deal?
The issue is the politics of any job discussions. The White House, in its statements, agrees that part of its calculus involved the political reality that any job offer would protect their favorites in the primaries.
In the Colorado case, the White House said: “Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters.”
In Pennsylvania, the official memorandum from White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer takes a similar tone: “The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the congressman vacating his seat in the House.”
Can the White House legally engage in politics?
The answer depends on who makes the decision. When it comes to patronage jobs, the line between politics and merit can be fuzzy and has been even before the days of the Revolution.
“There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements,” Bauer wrote in his memorandum.
Republicans are less sure, contending that if an offer is made in the expectation of a return, such as dropping a primary bid, then it could be construed as violating corruption laws.
As a practical matter, the final answer will depend on what some prosecutor says and what eventually happens in court.
Is court the only arena?
Political battles go beyond the legalisms into the court of public opinion. The Obama administration came into office promising a new kind of politics and a greater transparency on all issues. The GOP is hoping to tarnish those claims by casting the White House patronage efforts as politics as usual.
It is also no coincidence that the current kerfuffle over patronage comes as a public corruption trial begins in Obama’s home state of Illinois and as top Republicans, such as the former head of the Florida GOP, face charges of cheating their party out of funds.
At the very least, the swirl of corruption charges might confuse the public and prevent any single politician from drowning in the whirlpool.
-- Michael Muskal
