issa whitehouseletters

8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters

1/32


2/32


3/32


4/32


5/32


6/32


7/32


8/32


9/32


10/32


11/32


12/32


13/32


14/32


15/32


16/32


17/32


18/32


19/32


20/32


21/32


22/32


23/32


24/32

July 10, 2014

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

Chairman

Committee on Oversight and Government ReformUnited States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Issa:

I write in further response to your letters of March 18 and May 27, 2014, andmost recent letter requesting testimony from Assistant to the President David Simas

regarding the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach (OPSO). Bo

predecessor made significant efforts in our previous letters to accommodate your sta

in this matternamely, to better understand how OPSO is operating in compliance requirements of the Hatch Actand my last letter closed with an invitation to conta

you have additional questions.

Instead of continuing that dialogue, you opted to seek testimony at a Commi

from an immediate advisor to the President, a request that you undoubtedly understa

special concerns in light of the constitutional separation of powers. Accordingly, I

emphasize the salient features of OPSO and to ask that you provide a detailed explaspecific questions concerning OPSOs compliance with the Hatch Act that the Com

believes remain unanswered. I am hopeful that we might together find a way to ma

information available to you that would answer any legitimate remaining questions.time, we must ensure that any accommodation is faithful to our respective constitutiand cannot be misunderstood as an effort by the Committee to seek confidential inte

House information in an effort to gain a competitive advantage for the Committees

candidates in elections this fall.

Your prior correspondence suggests the Committees interest in OPSO bega

of its review of newspaper articles and the description of OPSO contained therein.1

on these second-hand accounts, I did not read your letters to identify any reported Oactivities that would violate the Hatch Act. But it was clear from your earlier corres

that you would benefit from a better explanation of what OPSO does and, just as imit does not do. The previous letters we delivered to the Committee accordingly prov

substantial information to that end.


25/32

analysis regarding ongoing or contemplated policy initiatives. It also works with co

and political groups to evaluate public support for Presidential policies and initiative

Additionally, it communicates with Democratic organizations to remain informed abcurrent political environment in order to advise and assist Presidential decision-mak

of note, it conducts these activities with a tiny staff currently Mr Simas, two other

commissioned officers, and one administrative assistant.

Second, regarding what OPSO does not do, it shares no resemblance to the p

features of the prior Administrations Political Affairs Office, which was the subjec

substantial criticism by OSC and by your Committee under former Chairman Waxm

know from the investigative report you cited in your March 18 letter, your Committinvestigating the prior Administrations Political Affairs Office after learning of a

political briefing by the Deputy Director of the prior Administrations Political Aff

the General Services Administration (GSA).2 According to the investigative reportDeputy Director at the White House displayed slides to GSA officials describing th

House Republicans the White House wanted to defend in the 2008 election . . . [and

House Democrats the White House wanted to defeat; briefing attendees also testifiGSA Administrator asked her employees how we could help our candidates in t

election.3

In stark contrast to the Political Affairs Office in the prior Administratioconsistent with the guidance in OSCs 2011 Report, it is worth again emphasizing th

of OPSO, as I explained them in my last letter to you:

[OPSO] has not been and does not intend to be[] operating a political boiler

room managing the 2014 midterm elections; providing political briefings toagency officials on targeted races or how to help candidates; coordinating

political appointee travel to political events; tracking candidate fundraising;

encouraging political appointees to volunteer for political campaigns.

The letter we received last Thursday requesting testimony from Mr. Simas a

the Committees response to the information we have provided thus far. Notably, th

identifies no legitimate questions that remain unanswered after the Committee receiinformation we provided in our prior letters. Nor has the Committee identified any

OPSO is operating contrary to our representationsand I trust you would bring any

evidence to my attention immediately. Rather, the letters substantive content is limshort sentences in which the Committee expresses a broad and undefined desire to q

Simas on the role and function of the White House Office of Political Strategy and

including on whether the White House is taking adequate steps to ensure that polit

by Administration officials complies with relevant statutes . . . .4


26/32

We have already provided substantial information on the steps we have take

Hatch Act compliance. Thus, without a more detailed explanation from the Commi

continued interest in this matter, we are hindered in our ability to propose an appropaccommodation of additional information. It is plain, however, that the extraordina

hearing testimony from Mr. Simas, which lacks a sufficient predicate and raises sub

separation of powers concerns, is not appropriate.

Administrations from both parties have long taken the position that congress

requests for information may impact important Executive Branch interests, especial

that would impinge on the Presidents need for advice from advisors who will speak

and openly with him and among themselves. These interests are especially acute wat the Presidents most senior Assistants. As you know from over a decade of servi

Congress, it is exceedingly rare that such individuals appear to testify before a cong

Committee.

With regard to the request at hand for testimony from Mr. Simas, the combin

important Executive Branch confidentiality interests and the corresponding absencesufficient predicate need for his testimony presents a further difficulty. It raises the

the Committees desire for information may not be limited to OPSOs compliance wAct but instead may extend to internal information about Mr. Simas analysis and ad

current political environment and how that informs the Presidents development of pother actions. I am certain we both agree that neither political party should have the

conduct a partisan inquiry to gain inside information in seeking political advantage;

reach a mutual accommodation must reflect that.

As first articulated by former President Reagan, I continue to believe that go

negotiations and the tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary methe Legislative and Executive Branches interact and resolve disagreements. In the sapproach, I am providing with this letter certain documents that address specific que

have raised in your letters. These include slides used in a mandatory Hatch Act trai

provided to White House staff this past spring and attended by all staff then and curassigned to OPSO; a calendar invitation for a March 2014 meeting on the Hatch Ac

members of the White House Counsels Office and lawyers from the Office of Spec

and email correspondence reflecting that the then and current OPSO staff received a

directed to review the reports by the Office of Special Counsel and your CommitteeAdministrations Political Affairs Office in order to understand precisely what activ

permitted and which were not. As I trust you will appreciate, these documents dem

we are applying the lessons of both OSCs and this Committees reports. In additiodocuments, and in order to address any other questions you have about OPSO, my s


27/32

In closing, I wish to assure you that it remains the policy of this Administra

comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent w

constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch. I look forward to mforward on this matter in that spirit of cooperation, and I and my staff are at your di

that purpose.

Sincerely,

W. Neil Eggleston

cc: The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Minority Member

The Honorable Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel

U.S. Office of Special Counsel


28/32


29/32


30/32


31/32


32/32

issa whitehouseletters

Documents