Patronage

Patronage is the hiring or appointment to a government post as a reward for helping a politician win or stay in office. Political patronage is also known as the “spoils system,” which refers to appointing persons to government positions based on political support instead of merit. This practice, which became problematic, can be traced back to the early nineteenth century when President Thomas Jefferson replaced some Federalists who were appointed to their government jobs during the administrations of Presidents George Washington and John Adams. The replacements were more in line with Jefferson’s views.

Background

The patronage system thrived in the US federal government until 1883. In 1820, Congress limited federal administrators to four-year terms, which led to constant turnover. By the 1860s, patronage had led to widespread inefficiency and political corruption. In the era of President Andrew Jackson, jobs in the federal government were routinely given to political supporters, which was essentially bribery. Jackson awarded allies, including journalists, who supported him, and many of his picks for office ended up being tied to corruption. The loss of a presidential election by a particular party could result in almost complete turnover in the federal government. For example, when President Benjamin Harrison assumed office in 1889, thirty-one thousand federal postmaster positions changed hands.

The patronage system changed drastically over time. In 1881, President James Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau, a lawyer and Garfield's supporter. Guiteau believed that he had played a vital role in getting Garfield elected and expected a job in return. At one point, Guiteau was removed from the White House when his attempts to lobby Garfield for a job became too aggressive. Eventually, Guiteau, who was believed to suffer from a mental illness, approached Garfield in a Washington train station and shot the president in the back.

It became apparent that the federal government had to do something to prevent political office seekers, like Guiteau, from creating a potential danger to politicians. This inspired the creation and passage of the Civil Service Act, or Pendleton Act of 1883, which was signed into law by President Chester Arthur, Garfield’s vice president. Under this law, the US Civil Service Commission was created as a nonpartisan federal agency tasked with overseeing the hiring of federal civil servants. The commission included three members appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. All three members could not be from the same party. Exams were required for those seeking federal employment, and appointments were apportioned among the states and territories based on population. The act also barred political candidates from soliciting campaign contributions from federal workers. It also became illegal to fire or demote someone for political reasons. In addition, no senator or representative could make a recommendation to hire a candidate.

The act was named for its sponsor, George Pendleton, who was a lawyer from Ohio who also served in the US House of Representatives. Pendleton, a Democrat, opposed President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. (Habeas corpus required a prisoner or a detainee to be brought before a judge.) In 1864, Pendleton ran as vice president with George B. McClellan, who was the presidential candidate, but they were defeated.

Overview

Further legislation helped avert the issue of patronage. The Hatch Act of 1939 places limits on certain political activities of federal employees, particularly when they are on the job. All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and the vice president, are covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act. These employees may not:

• use official authority or influence to interfere with an election;
• solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency;
• solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations);
• be candidates for public office in partisan elections;
• engage in political activity while on duty in a government office, wearing an official uniform, or using a government vehicle; and
• wear partisan political buttons on duty.

Also, those working for other entities that are in close connection with federally funded programs are covered under the Hatch Act. The aim of the law is to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan manner, to protect federal employees from political intimidation in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are promoted based on merit, not political affiliation. The act was created following a scandal in which Harry Hopkins, an ally of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, had promised jobs and promotions in exchange for votes in a US Senate election in Kentucky. Hopkins pressured employees from the Works Progress Administration into working on the campaigns of candidates who were allies or supporters of Roosevelt.

In twenty-first-century politics, presidents continue the practice of patronage by making their political allies ambassadors to friendly nations, for example. In 2009, NBC reported that 57 percent of President Barack Obama’s nominees in the diplomatic sector did not have prior State Department experience, and that 23 percent of those employees had raised more than fifty thousand dollars for Obama's campaign. President Donald Trump gave his Republican supporters high-level positions. Politico reported that 38 percent of those appointed to such positions donated to Trump's campaign. However, while political patronage still exists in the twenty-first century, it is much less widespread than in prior years. As of 2022, presidents appointed people to fewer than 1 percent of all federal positions.

Arguments in favor of political patronage defend it as a means of maintaining an active party organization by offering loyal workers occupational rewards. It also gives the ruling party loyal and cooperative employees. Supporters say it results in a more effective government because the appointed employees have a stake in helping the elected official in fulfilling his or her campaign promises. Those who oppose political patronage point out that such appointments are based on the party’s needs and do not take into consideration the appointee’s qualifications.

There have been movements in the 2020s to alter the status of some federal civil service employees so that they are exempt from the regular hiring, disciplinary, and firing procedures of federal workers. Former President Donald Trump wanted to significantly expand this group of exempt federal employees. Making these employees exempt means that they could be let go during presidential transitions because their jobs are not protected. Many believe this is a threat to national security. About two million civil service employees work in national security or in related positions.

On October 21, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to make a list of positions that would be in a new category, Schedule F. These employees included the following:

• those who participate substantively in drafting regulations or guidance;
• those who function as supervising attorneys;
• those with substantial discretion to perform supervising agency functions prescribed by law; those who work with proposals covered by the deliberative process privilege; and
• those who conduct collective bargaining on behalf of an agency.

At the time, there already five groups of civil servants—schedules A, B, C, D, and E—who were exempt from the civil service rules because it was not feasible or practical to use traditional competitive hiring procedures for these positions. For example, Schedule C employees work in confidential or policy-making positions that are likely to change during a presidential transition. Schedule F would have added an additional fifty thousand exempt employees.

President Joe Biden rescinded the policy upon taking office in 2021, but some conservatives would like to see it return, including ex-Trump administration staffers. The Preventing a Patronage System Act (PPSA) has been proposed to prohibit future presidents from re-establishing Schedule F or creating any new group of exempt civil service employees.

The US Supreme Court has fairly consistently upheld limits on the political activity of government employees since its decision in Ex parte Curtis (1882). In that decision, the justices upheld the constitutionality of an 1876 law banning government officials from requesting or receiving money from government employees for political purposes. The high court imposed First Amendment limitations on patronage in a series of decisions beginning in 1976. In Elrod v. Burns (1976), the court prohibited a newly elected Democratic sheriff from firing non–civil service Republican employees. The Court reasoned that such dismissals infringe on core First Amendment political expression and association rights. The decisions in Branti v. Finkel (1980) and Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois(1990) were based on the same rationale.

Bibliography

“Congress Must Pass the Preventing a Patronage System Act to Protect Federal Civil Servants’ Impartiality.” American Progress, 2 Dec 2022. www.americanprogress.org/article/congress-must-pass-the-preventing-a-patronage-system-act-to-protect-federal-civil-servants-impartiality/. Accessed 27 Dec. 2022.

Gill, Kathy. “Hatch Act: Definition and Examples of Violations.” ThoughtCo, 23 Sept., 2021. www.thoughtco.com/the-hatch-act-3368321. Accessed 27 Dec. 2022.

Kennedy, Lesley. “What is the Hatch Act and Why Was Established in 1939?” History.com, 22 Sept. 2020. www.history.com/news/hatch-act-fdr-politics. Accessed 27 Dec. 2022.

McNamara, Robert. “Pendleton Act.” ThoughtCo, 26 Aug. 2020. www.thoughtco.com/pendleton-act-definition-1773336. Accessed 27 Dec. 2022

“Patronage.” Political Dictionary. politicaldictionary.com/words/patronage/. Accessed 27 Dec. 2022.

“Pendleton Act.” Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/Pendleton‗Act. Accessed 27 Dec. 2022.