The Drug Enforcement Agency is to be directly involved in Colorado's election, according to the
Daily Camera. DEA special agents are directing a $10,000 "fund" to counter a statewide marijuana initiative.
The real danger is in money and influence of Federal Agencies. Say the Administration's Faith Based Charity Office gets directly involved in anti-gay marriage initiatives. Or, the "new" EPA funds anti-environmental initiatives. The list can (and probably will) be endless. The federal government's budget can be used to stifle not only citizen's initiatives but also dissent. This an immediate danger to all citizens. This is probably a "trial" to see if federal angencies can indeed influence state elections.
The other problem, of course, is that the DEA is a federal agency under the executive branch. Which means the executive branch is now directly involved in state political actions:
Steve Fox, the group's executive director, said members of the executive branch, including the DEA, should leave law-making to legislators.
"Taxpayer money should not be going toward the executive branch advocating one side or another," Fox said. "It's a wholly inappropriate use of taxpayer money."
Jeff Sweetin, the special agent in charge of the Denver office of the DEA, said voters have every right to change the laws. And the law allows his agency to get involved in that process to tell voters why they shouldn't decriminalize pot.
"My mantra has been, 'If Americans use the democratic process to make change, we're in favor of that,'" he said. "We're in favor of the democratic process. But as a caveat, we're in favor of it working based on all the facts."
So, once again, the Adminstration is exercising it's fiat under it's "executive theory of everything".
But federal law -- which governs what DEA agents can do -- is different.
The Hatch Act, passed in 1939 and amended in 1993, governs most political speech. Passed in the wake of patronage scandals in which the party in power would use government money and staff to campaign against the opposition, the law is mostly aimed at partisan political activity, said Ken Bickers, a University of Colorado political science professor.
While the act's prohibitions against on-the-job partisan politicking are strict, for the most part it allows federal employees to take part in non-partisan politics. And it's mostly silent on non-partisan ballot measures.
"I'm not sure that this doesn't slide through the cracks in the Hatch Act," Bickers said. "The Hatch Act isn't about political activity -- it's about partisan political activity. Since this is a ballot initiative, and there's no party affiliation attached to it, that part of the Hatch Act probably wouldn't be violated."
An official from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency charged with investigating violations of the act, said in a statement last week that the DEA hasn't run afoul of Hatch.