This is silly. There’s nothing either new, or illegal, about NASA administrators endorsing political candidates (though some, thinking NASA some kind of “special” agency, above the fray, may find it distasteful). The Hatch Act was meant to prevent civil servants from being pressured to engage in political activity by political appointees, not to prevent political appointees from committing acts of politics.
[Update a few minutes later]
The problem here is not that the administrator is doing anything wrong in such an endorsement, but that, as Keith Cowing points out, he can’t keep his story straight as to whether he is or isn’t, or whether he can or can’t.
And this email to Dr. Griffin from a “tax payer” is also silly:
When you say that “every effort should be made to re-elect him to office” that sounds to me like a civil servant making an endorsement of a political candidate and a violation of the Hatch Act. I am a huge fan and supporter of the space program. It is hard for me to imagine why it is helpful to tie a corrupt politician to NASA, which needs more federal support, not less, especially when you just had to cut your science budget to shreds.
I am a tax payer and pay your salary and you do not speak for me when you publicly encourage people to re-elect someone who has become less effective since he has been indicted on felony charges. If another NASA employee had made this same speech, would he or she have been fired?
a) As already noted, this is not a violation of the Hatch Act.
b) Whether or not Tom Delay is a “corrupt politician” is a matter of opinion, not fact (and in fact will remain so even if he were to be convicted, though the case for it would obviously be stronger).
c) Whether or not such an endorsement increases, decreases, or has no effect whatsoever on public support for NASA is purely speculative (my opinion is the latter).
d) The notion that just because someone is a taxpayer, all public officials are “speaking for them” is ludicrous and illogical. Even ignoring the fact that he puts forth no reason why anyone would conclude that a taxpayer’s views are somehow being represented by public officials’ statements, consider the inherent contradiction, since many public officials say many things, often at odds with each other. How could anyone think that they all speak for our confused emailer without their head exploding?
e) Finally, yes, some other NASA employees could potentially get in trouble for making such a speech, because they would be covered by the Hatch Act. Not all NASA employees are equal, despite the egalitarian ideals of some NASA idealists.