A couple thoughts on this:

(1) I'm not sympathetic to the assertion that reporters aren't talking about the Hatch Act. The news I read and listen to has been replete with discussion of the RNC's various violations of the Hatch Act. 1/ https://twitter.com/bzbergmann/status/1299018124386328576

Maybe the assertion is that the news the general public pays attention to isn't reporting on the Hatch Act. But that seems like a problematic assertion for a couple reasons. First, I'm not clear about what would be defined as the news people pay attention to. 2/

If you define it as "News that doesn't mention the Hatch Act," well, you're right, but you're also not helpful.

But assume that there's a legit argument that popular news doesn't report on the Hatch Act. We still don't know which way causation runs. 3/

Is it that popular news thinks people don't want to hear about it, so they don't report on it? Or is it that people want simple news so they only listen to the news that doesn't report on complex topics like the Hatch Act? 4/

(Remember, of course, that I haven't accepted that popular news isn't reporting on it--in my experience, it is. But even if it isn't, telling reporters to report on it doesn't mean that people will get it--depending on causality, maybe they'll shift their news sources.) 5/

(2) While violations of the Hatch Act are illegal, they're not criminal. Congress decided that enforcement should rest in the relevant agency, meaning the president is the ultimate enforcer. 6/

If the president decides not to bother enforcing the Hatch Act, well, violations won't be enforced. Maybe Congress should change enforcement mechanisms. But for now, if Trump doesn't feel like enforcing it, we're stuck with public shaming for enforcement. 7/

Public shaming of a group particularly known for its imperviousness to publish shame. 8/8