Sorry, Charlie

A lot of people are talking about this McClatchy story, which details how the Commerce and Treasury Departments were flying around the country giving out grants in crucial swing districts to help Republicans during the 2006 elections. It's complete politicization of the federal government, and it's caused many to openly wonder whether or not Karl Rove would finally be taken down for this clear violation of the Hatch Act, which bans executive branch officials from participating in electoral politics.

Emptywheel caught up to this as well, but Addie Stan had it first: the Hatch Act carries no criminal penalties. The most disruptive thing you can do to a violator of the Hatch Act is fire them from their executive branch job. Rove resigned, so that's out. And the only man with the power to do the firing if he was still in his position would be George W. Bush. This is why the clearly guilty Lurita Doan still runs the General Services Administration.

This doesn't mean Congress can't amend the law, and give it some actual teeth, of course:

Because of a tight deadline during a congressional recess, I was unable to get an answer to the question by press time. However, I got a call yesterday from Phil Schiliro, the committee's majority chief of staff, who told me, "One of the things the committee will be looking at is whether the law works." Does that mean a legislative fix is in the offing? Schiliro couldn't say, but he replied that legislation of that sort is certainly part of the committee's purview.

But that wouldn't be applied retroactively. So Karl Rove won't see any penalty for violating the Hatch Act whatsoever.

Frustratin', ain't it?