Yesterday, an entire imbroglio erupted over Ivanka Trump’s clothing line. Today, the whole saga may have just got a lot more… illegal.
It started when one of her retailers, Nordstrom, announced it was pulling her line from their stores. The president responded on Twitter, and consumers took action with their wallets, by both shopping at Nordstrom and boycotting the department store chain.
Today, on Fox & Friends, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway gave a hearty endorsement of Ivanka’s brand, telling viewers to purchase her products.
https://twitter.com/AndrewKirell/status/829679277033394176
“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff, is what I would say. I hate shopping — I’m going to buy stuff today,” Conway, who is a federal employee and bound by laws covering federal employees, said.
She later added, “This is just — it’s a wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully — I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”
People on Twitter instantly began speculating that Conway’s words were in violation of federal law.
The law in question, 5 CFR 2635.702, covers the use of public office for private gain.
“An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations.”
Neither the White House nor the Office of Government Ethics immediately responded to requests for comment.
Update 11am CT, Feb. 9: As the Washington Post reports, there is virtually no question about whether Conway violated the ethics rule. So, will she pay any consequences? Not likely, as the Post explains: “Enforcement measures are largely left to the head of the federal agency — in Conway’s case, the White House. One lawyer said a typical executive-branch employee who violated the rule could face significant disciplinary action, including a multi-day suspension and loss of pay.”
