Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different cate

Second - those regs are to protect employees from regular political participation. Not public agitation, moreover, executives are in a completely different category. California state law seems to disagree. CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] 1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: [...](b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. I mean that seems pretty cut and dry to me, Kaplan's actions seem pretty objectively covered here. It doesn't make exception for executives, it doesn't specify who is or isn't covered (except for section 1106 which has very specific applications of chapter 1102 governing public emplyoees), it doesn't say what the merit of their political activity needs to be, it doesn't say anything about 'public agitation', nor does any portion of Chapter 5 s But IANAL. I'd be more than willing to read any case law you have that should refute this. But an an executive appearing at a rally, on stage, making political claims? Perhaps I missed something: what claims did Mr. Kaplan make at the confirmation hearing or about the hearing that you claim are political? I'd like to read a source of any statements he's made that you refer to here. The coverage I've read indicates (and if you have something that suggests he made actual statements about Kavanaugh's confirmation, the committee process, or the allegations against him I would implore you to share it, if you'd be so kind) that he was seen in attendance at the hearings. Anything else is speculation, conjecture and supposition and makes for a poor argument for why Kaplan should not be allowed to attend the confirmation of a personal friend to the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting that his attendance at these hearings constitutes a political 'claim'?