"A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
This law, known as the federal anti-nepotism law, was passed in 1967. It is frequently assumed that it was the product of congressional resentment of JFK having chosen his brother for Attorney General. However, Neal Smith, the Iowa Democrat who sponsored the law, has always insisted that it was not in any way aimed at the Kennedys, and indeed his concern seemed to be more with small-town postmasters: "He said the primary offender of hiring relatives was the postmaster in small towns, and suggested that the hiring of relatives created a morale problem with other workers." http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...nti-nepotism-bill-puts-crimp-in-old-u-s-habit See also Congressional Quarterly's *Guide to Congress* which mentions Smith's explanation https://books.google.com/books?id=iqN2AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1160 but also notes that there had been much unfavorable publicity about members of Congress "padding their official or district offices with relatives who did no work for their government paycheck."
In any event, what if the law had never been passed--or at any rate had been made inapplicable to presidential appointments that require senatorial confirmation? See Hana Metchis Volokh, The Two Appointments Clauses: Statutory Qualifications for Federal Officers, 10 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 745 (2008) http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=jcl for an argument that the law is unconstitutional in such instances: "...I will argue that statutory requirements are unconstitutional for all appointments that require the advice and consent of the Senate. Despite a long history of statutory qualifications, the text and structure of the Appointments Clause reveal that Congress is not authorized to limit who may hold office in this way. Confirmation by the *Senate*, not statutory restrictions from the *full Congress*, is the process the Founders designed to ensure responsible appointments of officers..." For another attack on the constitutionality of the law, see Richard P. Wulwick & Frank J. Macchiarola, Congressional Interference with the President's Power to. Appoint, 24 Stetson L. Rev. 625, 643-45 (1995) http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawrevie...with-the-presidents-power-to-appoint-24-3.pdf
What difference would it make if there was no anti-nepotism law (at least with respect to offices requiring confirmation by the Senate)? A few possibilities:
(1) Might President G. W. Bush find a cabinet position for his brother Jeb?
(2) If Colin Powell were elected president in 1996, I could see a number of posts available for his son Michael.
(3) Finally, President Bill Clinton had some problems in 1993 because "Mr. Clinton could not appoint his wife to a regular Government job because of an anti-nepotism law enacted after President John F. Kennedy named his brother Robert as Attorney General. [As I have noted, this connection is in fact dubious--DT] But Mr. Clinton wanted his wife to supervise the most important domestic policy initiative of his Administration. In choosing her to run a Federal advisory panel, he must give the public access to some of its deliberations..." whereas "White House officials and other Government employees are normally free to meet behind closed doors.." http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/11/us/judge-puts-limits-on-secret-sessions-for-health.html But would it have been politically feasible for Bill Clinton to have appointed his wife to a "regular Government job" even if there had been no federal anti-nepotism law?
This law, known as the federal anti-nepotism law, was passed in 1967. It is frequently assumed that it was the product of congressional resentment of JFK having chosen his brother for Attorney General. However, Neal Smith, the Iowa Democrat who sponsored the law, has always insisted that it was not in any way aimed at the Kennedys, and indeed his concern seemed to be more with small-town postmasters: "He said the primary offender of hiring relatives was the postmaster in small towns, and suggested that the hiring of relatives created a morale problem with other workers." http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...nti-nepotism-bill-puts-crimp-in-old-u-s-habit See also Congressional Quarterly's *Guide to Congress* which mentions Smith's explanation https://books.google.com/books?id=iqN2AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1160 but also notes that there had been much unfavorable publicity about members of Congress "padding their official or district offices with relatives who did no work for their government paycheck."
In any event, what if the law had never been passed--or at any rate had been made inapplicable to presidential appointments that require senatorial confirmation? See Hana Metchis Volokh, The Two Appointments Clauses: Statutory Qualifications for Federal Officers, 10 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 745 (2008) http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=jcl for an argument that the law is unconstitutional in such instances: "...I will argue that statutory requirements are unconstitutional for all appointments that require the advice and consent of the Senate. Despite a long history of statutory qualifications, the text and structure of the Appointments Clause reveal that Congress is not authorized to limit who may hold office in this way. Confirmation by the *Senate*, not statutory restrictions from the *full Congress*, is the process the Founders designed to ensure responsible appointments of officers..." For another attack on the constitutionality of the law, see Richard P. Wulwick & Frank J. Macchiarola, Congressional Interference with the President's Power to. Appoint, 24 Stetson L. Rev. 625, 643-45 (1995) http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawrevie...with-the-presidents-power-to-appoint-24-3.pdf
What difference would it make if there was no anti-nepotism law (at least with respect to offices requiring confirmation by the Senate)? A few possibilities:
(1) Might President G. W. Bush find a cabinet position for his brother Jeb?
(2) If Colin Powell were elected president in 1996, I could see a number of posts available for his son Michael.
(3) Finally, President Bill Clinton had some problems in 1993 because "Mr. Clinton could not appoint his wife to a regular Government job because of an anti-nepotism law enacted after President John F. Kennedy named his brother Robert as Attorney General. [As I have noted, this connection is in fact dubious--DT] But Mr. Clinton wanted his wife to supervise the most important domestic policy initiative of his Administration. In choosing her to run a Federal advisory panel, he must give the public access to some of its deliberations..." whereas "White House officials and other Government employees are normally free to meet behind closed doors.." http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/11/us/judge-puts-limits-on-secret-sessions-for-health.html But would it have been politically feasible for Bill Clinton to have appointed his wife to a "regular Government job" even if there had been no federal anti-nepotism law?