Talk:Hatch Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation needed

Suggest we add a legal citation to the actual text of the act and implementing regulations

I'll try and do some research and clean up when I can but there are some serious issues with the secton on "Hatch DOs and DON'Ts". Several of them are contradictory and don't make sense. InnerSpace 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The description of the Hatch Act states that it doesn't apply to certain individuals. The act doesn't make that claim. This is from the Office of Special Council www.osc.gov/HatchAct.aspx.

"The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ​The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​​​​" As such it does apply to the President, Vice President, etc as it relates to the political activities of these individuals being connected to federally funded programs in a partisan way. --wizbang_fl 01:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatibi (talk • contribs)

Where's the stuff about using private email servers?

Underreported news story today is that the White House conveniently lost a bunch of crucial emails that had been kept on RNC servers rather than whitehouse.gov. Supposedly that storage is a violation of the Hatch Act. But I don't see anything about that here. 66.27.69.167 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Aknaton

Possible Plagerism

Couldn't help noticing that some of the contents of the article match text from a government textbook companion site. The site has since been taken down, so check out http://web.archive.org/web/20050407204834/http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_040900_hatchact.htm The section is question matches word for word:

Although criticism of wpa workers centered on Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maryland, the political clout of federal dollars nationwide in the midst of the depression was undeniable; even without malfeasance, programs like the wpa attracted votes. Many Republicans, however, were convinced that wpa workers had gone further, intimidating staff members, pressuring clients, and using public funds for political purposes.

At least a citation is needed but I think further action should be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.15.164 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Updating the information? - Utah case

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=5046288 - I will leave this to the main editor of the Hatch Act of 1939 article to update. Samuelsenwd (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is none/noone owns it. Be bold and make the addition yourself - Other users will likely see it and polish it up, if it needs polishing. MrZaius^talk 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comey's intent of letter to Congress not clear

The Recent Events entry for October 28, 2016 states that "[Comey's] letter was part and parcel of a Republican media campaign to turn attention away from the Republican's sexual transgressions and toward email handling practices while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state." While it is factual to say that the letter was "Against longstanding democratic traditions, his employer's public integrity policy, and verbal DOJ guidance" this writer knows of no evidence as to Mr. Comey's motivation.

Suggest that either 1) a citation be added to provide evidence of Mr. Comey's intent or 2) the part of the sentence regarding intent be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobyroo (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I just removed an unsupported claim that Comey was not subject to the Hatch Act. I find the provisions confusing to sort through; this is, of course the reason to stick to published sources. I also added a separate news article with a more specific claim. --Dylan Thurston (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Comey's letter not "reopening" of the case

Hatch Act Recent Events entry states about Comey's letter:

"which stated that the FBI would be reopening their investigation"

The letter states no such thing about "reopening" anything. It only states that he agreed that the FBI should take the appropriate investigative steps. FBI cases are never "closed."

71.236.4.105 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, people are adding in (Republician Nominee) Donald Trump's remarks, and (incorrectly) attributing them to Comey's letter. This topic is becoming politically charged - be on the lookout for bias/incorrect information on this page.

JollyGreenJesus (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hatch Act which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)