Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Malfeasance in Office

Criteria for Potential Political Cases

Tea Party
Government Spending
Government Debt
Government Taxes
"Making America a Better Place to Live"
"Critical of How the Country is Being Run" 

The TIGTA Findings

"The criteria focused narrowly on the names and policy positions of organizations instead of tax-exempt laws and Treasury regulations."
81% of organizations with "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12" were delayed for more than one year.

Requests for information with no basis in law

Names of donors
List of issues and position on those issues
Roles/activities of audience and participants other than members
Will officer/director run for public office
Political affiliation of director, officers, speakers, etc
Information regarding employment
Information on activities of other organizations

The Hatch Act of 1939

"An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activity" is federal law that prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity. So the question is now:  Is singling out a political party or organization for additional scrutiny and delay, partisan?

Malfeasance in Office

Malfeasance has been defined as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.  

 "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance." ~ Daugherty v. Ellis

No comments: