Talk:Hatch Act

message: About "reopening". Comey's letter, first sentence: ".... I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of Secretary Clinton's personal mail server." 
That's what he wrote. Quibble away.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerIAS (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comey's Actual Language 

message: Hey all,
I think there's unclear information in the 'Background' section.
"Widespread allegations that local Democratic Party politicians used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the congressional elections of 1938 provided the immediate impetus for the passage of the Hatch Act."
''
As the reader, I do not understand how Democratic Party politicians used employees.  How were they used?  Here's the following sentences; they don't do much to clear up the point:
''
"Criticism centered on swing states such as Kentucky,[1] Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Pennsylvania, Republicans and dissident Democrats publicized evidence that Democratic politicians were consulted on the appointment of WPA administrators and case workers and that they used WPA jobs to gain unfair political advantages.[2] In 1938, a series of newspaper articles exposed WPA patronage and political contributions in return for employment, prompting an investigation by the Senate Campaign Expenditures Committee, headed by Sen. Morris Sheppard, a Texas Democrat.[3]"''
I don't know anything about this topic (and don't have time to learn right now), but am I correct in thinking this could be improved?
JollyGreenJesus (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: party workers were given WPA paychecks for construction projects but instead they did political canvassing for the party. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear information in the 'Background' section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hatch Act of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328215201/http://www.filsonhistorical.org/programs-and-publications/publications/the-filson-club-history-quarterly/1972-76.aspx to http://www.filsonhistorical.org/programs-and-publications/publications/the-filson-club-history-quarterly/1972-76.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hatch Act of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205221645/http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2007/pr07_04.htm to http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2007/pr07_04.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Current restrictions section includes a note saying:
It looks to me as if this ought to cite a more specific source, probably one or both of the following: , . 
Also, the section probably ought to be named simply Restrictions; see WP:DATED re Current. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current restrictions 

message: I came here looking for referenced explanation of whether Trump's recent use of the White House grounds for campaign activities, as well as other campaign activities by executive branch employees, violate the Hatch act. I don't see it, and I do not have the resources to research it. All I see are opinions, rather than reliably sourced information. The article will doubtless be consulted by numerous readers during the campaign and in the future regarding this issue, and improvements would be greatly appreciated. Edison (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Trump campaign

message: Instead of 2006-present, maybe split into: 2006-2016 (if I counted right, just 10 in 11 years), 2017-2020 (8 in less then 4 years; actual individual accusations against ~3 dozen people). A few articles:
*https://www.propublica.org/article/its-illegal-for-federal-officials-to-campaign-on-the-job-trump-staffers-keep-doing-it-anyways Excerpt: "Hatch Act violations were relatively rare in the previous two presidential administrations. Two cabinet officials were cited for Hatch Act violations during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency."
*https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/congress-must-stop-white-house-officials-hatch-act-violations/
*https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/sixteen-trump-administration-officials-violated-the-law-to-boost-trump-campaign-in-october/
* https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/16-trump-officials-committed-overt-hatch-act-violations-in-october-report/
*https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/10/29/elizabeth-warren-trump-hatch-act-violations
*https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/six-white-house-officials-hatch-act/index.html
Doug Grinbergs (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017-2020/Trump years section? 

message: The table in the "current restrictions" section of the article has two columns, one for "regular federal employees" and one for "restricted federal employees", with no indication of what those categories mean. Perhaps restricted employees are those who work for the "Agencies and employees prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity" listed in the following section? If so, this should be made clearer, and perhaps the order of these two sections should be swapped, so the term "restricted federal employees" can be defined before it is used. Andylatto (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Restricted Federal Employees" title is a link to the bottom section and also has a citation that explains what and why "restricted federal employees" exist. So yes, you are right on positing what it means. You are also free to swap them, as I'm not opposed to that. Bulhis899 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are "restricted federal employees"? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved.  Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 December 2021