NPS to Edwards: stop filming or leave park (mid-June)

[struggle4progress]

by Rob Poggenklass · News · June 27, 2007

~snip~ During a June 16 campaign visit to West Branch, Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, stopped at the Village Green. For 15 or 20 minutes she walked around the park greeting residents, accompanied by two of her children and several staff members, including a photographer and a videographer.

After about half an hour on the Village Green, Edwards introduced herself as the wife of a presidential candidate to Melissa Bergman, a park ranger at the Hoover Site. According to Pat Furchtenicht, a Cedar County Democrat who was standing next to Edwards at the time, Bergman told Edwards that she was not allowed to take pictures at the Hoover Site. ~snip~

Bergman then told Edwards that her staff could either stop taking pictures or leave. Edwards did both; she and her staff promptly exited the Village Green and headed toward the Hometown Days carnival on Second Street, where her staff resumed taking pictures. ~snip~

Dan Leistikow, a spokesman for the Edwards campaign, said Monday that Elizabeth Edwards complied with the National Park Service’s request. He did not have any further comment. ~snip~

http://www.westbranchtimes.com/article.php?id=1864

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. So will Repub candidates' wives get thrown out of national parks, too?

Stay tuned.

[jwirr]

2. I have been in that park and I took pictures - so only Democratic

candidates wives are not allowed? Bergman and the park service own Elizabeth an apology.

[Chipper Chat]

3. Dam those silly rules.

[Chipper Chat]

4. Here Elizabeth / use this:

On second thought ya better not. Terr'wrists SURELY will plan to blow up Hoover's birth house - a great propperghandi victory for Al Kayak.

[izzie]

5. If it is a private park they are right but if it is tax paid she can stay

I ran into this problem as an artist. Public building are free and I can paint them and make a profit. I can not go on to private land and do the same even if the land is open for the public. It has some thing to do with copyright laws I think etc. SOOOO my guess is they can stop her if it is a private park. I had not done private homes in this historic site but they were going to make sure I did not so they called me into the site to tell me.

[struggle4progress]

6. Herbert Hoover National Historic Site is run by the National Park Service

http://www.nps.gov/heho/index.htm

[ljm2002]

10. Er, I think the clue is...

...NPS stands for National Park Service. Ergo, it must not be a private park.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Film permits are much different; filming is different than painting

For one thing, painting is done by one quiet person with little equipment. Filming usually takes at least a few people and is inevitably more of a hubbub. Painting is also interpretive, whereas photographing is representational, therefore the issue of a release of physical likeness is a big issue.

Even though federal permits are often free, it's entirely different. Take it from someone who's been busted for stealing shots: film permitting is a serious issue. It's a serious bullshit issue and a form of naked shakedown in many cases, but it's the law nonetheless.

I permit and am fully insured as much as possible, but inevitably circumstances drive even the most buttoned-down of us to steal the occasional shot. Hell, even the police let you do it when you've got them on your payroll sometimes, and they're not allowed to.

Still, permits are the law. The problem is distinguishing between what's for profit and what's just legitimate home movie shooting. What with smaller cameras these days, the line is often very blurry. In this case, though, it's a good bet that the footage being shot had commercial potential, if not outright commercial intent.

It is pretty picky, though, especially for something so low-impact.

[izzie]

31. Interesting. I am sure I see no wrong with public lands.

Then who knows if some private person does not have a copyright on it with Bush and Co, selling off so much of tax payer things. More air waves to be controlled by big govt. and who even wishes to think about the control they have over the air above or the ground below. The road thing is getting to me. If states can sell off roads what else can be sold off? This group in DC is making me a little nuts

[LiberalFighter]

7. Hey Melissa Bergman... you are going to lose your job

You will be classified as a terrorist and sent to Iraq for reconditioning.

[struggle4progress]

8. huh ?

[LiberalFighter]

9. Read what you posted

[struggle4progress]

11. I'm not sure what currently justifies hostility towards the Ranger.

The request to leave, of course, seems ridiculous, given the small size of the operation: since it was apparently only the camera that the Ranger noticed, the activity really can't have been disruptive.

Given the current politicization of government agencies, of course, it is natural to suspect that the request was politically motivated, especially given other recent instances of misuse of Park Service personnel, as (for example) this one involving Abramoff.

But unless one actually knows something like that to be happening in this case, the Ranger, as a relatively low-level public servant, really deserves some benefit of the doubt.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Too many times those in low level positions don't follow the rules

and take it upon themselves to enforce what they want to enforce.

She is not that low-level of public servant when she has an area under her direct control.

[struggle4progress]

26. But look at sandnsea's posts downthread and my replies:

the Hatch Act does forbid federal employees from being engaged in various campaign-related activities, especially in the workplace, and the Bush Administration in 2004 provided some (vague, confusing, and disputed) guidance insisting that such employees intervene to stop any campaign-related activities.

Whether the guidance is correct or not, the Ranger may have been acting in accordance with her understanding of the guidance provided her.

[sandnsea]

13. You can't campaign on federal property

I would think after Al Gore and the telephone call scandal, everybody would know that. What's notable is that she promptly left if she couldn't take pictures of her concern for the people.

[struggle4progress]

14. I suspect that's not exactly correct. Do you have a link?

[sandnsea]

15. For what?

The Al Gore telephone scandal for campaigning from his office? Look it up yourself if you think I'm lying about it. It was stupid, but it's still true. You can't campaign on federal property.

[struggle4progress]

18. I question whether "can't campaign on federal property" accurately states the law

[sandnsea]

19. Oh brother

Examples of activities prohibited by the preceding restrictions include the following: authorizing the use of a federal building or office as described above for campaign activities, such as town hall meetings, rallies, parades, speeches, fundraisers, press conferences, “photo ops” or meet and greets; attending or planning such campaign events while on duty or in a federal building or office; or distributing campaign literature or wearing campaign-related items while on duty or in a federal building or office.

http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2004/pr04_13.htm

The Pendleton Act forbids using federal property to influence fundraising.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/finance/ncfin153.htm

I don't make shit up.

[struggle4progress]

20. The Hatch Act covers federal employee behavior, not all activity on Federal Property

and the document you reference (released 9 August 2004) has been subject to some criticism:

~snip~ The guidance is "an extraordinary reinterpretation of the Hatch Act," said David Hayes, who oversaw national parks as deputy secretary of the interior under Clinton, and who now serves as a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign. "It is a patently ridiculous and extreme measure that the Bush administration is taking to cover up its appalling record on funding and protecting national parks after promising in the 2000 campaign to make it a priority." ~snip~

On Aug. 9, the office issued a government-wide guidance in an effort "to clear up the confusion." That just happened to be the very day that John Kerry made a campaign stop at the Grand Canyon and delivered a speech criticizing the shortfall of funding for national parks under the Bush administration. ~snip~

Deeds did sound confident on one point: "There is a difference between an official visit and a campaign visit under the Hatch Act," she said. "If the campaign contacts the agency to set up an event, then that's a campaign visit, and that's not allowed." And yet "official" visits by officeholders to federal facilities are permissible.

Kerry strategists think the Bush camp is using this distinction to unfairly disadvantage the Democratic candidate. After all, Bush administration officials can easily contrive excuses to conduct "official business" on federal property -- business which incidentally includes the recitation of campaign talking points. "We constantly see Gale Norton and Steven Griles tripping around to national parks, puffing up the Bush record and advocating Bush policies -- which in an election year is clearly a campaign advantage," said Hayes. "And yet OSC is hardly blinking at this. It's hypocritical in the extreme." ~snip~

http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=17604

So, not only do I think you are misrepresenting the law, I think you are actually adopting the current Administration's misrepresentation, which seems to have been designed to eliminate National Park underfunding as a campaign issue.

[sandnsea]

21. Put the two together

And you cannot campaign on federal property. That's the way it has always been. This is nothing new.

You can visit federal property as part of a campaign or fact-finding mission - but you can't campaign from federal property.

Bush cannot show up at a military base and actually CAMPAIGN. The entirety of DU would have a hissy-fit if he did that, and rightfully so.

Jesus people have got to learn the meaning of the word objective.

[struggle4progress]

22. Bullsh!t. The Feds have owned Ellis Island since 1810, and President Johnson

added it to the Liberty Island National Monument in 1965.

But Reagan, in his 1980 campaign for the Presidency, gave a campaign speech there, with the Statue of Liberty as a prop:

~snip~ Arguably, Reagan's final crossover to the mainstream merged on a Labor Day stump speech that the then 69-year-old candidate gave at Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty treated to guest-of-honor seating behind him. A tie-less, windblown Reagan punctuated an attack on Carter's economic policies with a taut rejoinder:

"I'm told I can't use the word depression." Reagan's once-sharp diction strained through the sea breeze. "Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." ~snip~

http://www.flakmag.com/books/reagan.html

All of us would object to the use of federal personnel or resources being used for partisan campaign purposes. That, however, is somewhat different from the question of whether non-federal persons can sometimes avail themselves of federal properties in the course of campaigns.

[sandnsea]

24. A candidate can GO to federal property

They can't actively campaign ON federal property. I don't know the context of those remarks, whether Reagan was attending some particular event, etc. I don't even know how long the remarks were. But if it was a full-fledged campaign stop, it was illegal.

Kerry went to various national parks too, including the Grand Canyon, as you might recall. It's legal up and until you start campaigning, particularly to federal employees which is difficult not to do since they're everywhere.

It's similar to churches. You can go talk about various issues, you can't actively campaign.

[struggle4progress]

25. If you are correct, you should be able to give a link for your claim: this subthread began ...

... with your claim that Elizabeth Edwards should have known she could not to shoot any footage "on federal property."

To support this, you cited the Hatch Act, which only really covers Federal employees, and the 2004 OSC guidance, which (according to the link I provided) appears to have been intended to confuse Federal employees about the actual significance of the Hatch Act.

So I'm still waiting for any real evidence that a campaign is not allowed under any circumstances to walk onto piece of federal property and shoot footage it might use for campaign purposes, something which (without any proof) you claim has always been the case. If it's that clear cut, you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it.

[sandnsea]

27. You disagree with the links

I gave you two separate acts, plus there's the original article. You're wrong. A link won't fix that.

[struggle4progress]

28. I gave a link quoting Kerry's lawyers on the OSC material, pointing

out that the OSC "guidance" seemed intended to intimidate Federal employees by suggesting they could be charged with Hatch Act violations for other peoples's activities. The guidance you cite does, incidently, explicitly remark "the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§7321-7326, does not govern the actions of an individual who is running for partisan elective office." Similarly, the Pendleton Act essentially professionalized the civil service and protects the civil service from partisan misuse by the Executive. None of these materials seems to reflect your view that the sort of unobtrusive outdoor filming under the conditions described involved a real use of Federal resources or personnel, as prohibited by the Acts you cite.

[sandnsea]

29. So all the civil servants have to leave?

How are the civil servants supposed to do their job if they're in the middle of campaign activity that they aren't supposed to be involved in?

The problem in the Kerry campaign was that the Administration was trying to prevent Kerry from even stepping foot on federal property, regardless of his purpose. They went way beyond what the law calls for, which is a limit to direct campaigning and fundraising. It is to prevent employees from being coerced by the incumbent politician. Employees shouldn't have to tolerate some politician constantly haranguing them about their vote.

[jsamuel]

30. .

.

[rurallib]

32. Jim Leach used to use the Hoover library for Town Hall meetings

every quarter for about 30 years. People used to say it was illegal, but no one ever said a damn thing.
edit to add - the same park Elizabeth was removed from

[jeremy07]

16. +1

I second this!~

[sandnsea]

17. No thank you

I go on record rejecting the seconds of anyone associated with such gibberish as "glocktalk".