What is the Hatch Act?
The Hatch Act of 1939, or "an act to prevent pernicious political activities," was developed to prevent employees of the United States federal government from participating in any partisan activities or in other activities that defied the constitutional system of government. The Hatch Act takes its name from the New Mexico senator Carl Hatch, who authored the act. Its main effect is to prevent federal employees from engaging in any form of political action. The act was largely aimed at preventing the bribery and coercion of government officials to support or influence government elections in any way.
Electoral reform was the primary purpose of the Hatch Act; before the act, there was a great deal of corruption in the electoral system of the United States. It was not uncommon for federal employees to run a merit system in which they rewarded individuals for voting in a certain way. The act covers such topics as bribery, coercion, restrictions on use of government funds, and participation in political campaigns. Most federal employees are actually not permitted to be formally associated with or to play any active role in political campaigns. Enforcement of the Hatch Act helped to bring about the end of the merit system in the United States.
The Hatch Act also prevents federal employees from belonging to groups that engage in activities that go against the principles of the United States' constitutional form of government. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, this was interpreted to include various communist, socialist, and labor party groups as such groups were seen as distinctly anti-American. Most modern interpretations of the act do not include such restrictions; the elements relating to elections are the only generally enforced aspects of the Hatch Act. The statement of the act is, however, relatively general, and alternate interpretations are possible.
There are many actions that federal employees may not engage in and many groups they may not belong to. Generally speaking, a federal employee may not be a candidate in any partisan election for any public office. They are also not allowed to use their public positions to influence anyone's decision regarding public partisan elections. They may, however, register and vote and assist in voter participation drives. They are also allowed to participate in some partisan activities, such as volunteering to help in a political party, as long as they do so in a strictly personal manner that in no way involves their federal work.
I had forgotten about that law, however the Democrats have torn it to pieces. There has been a problem with the ballots since Billy Boy Clinton.
This needs to be spread around and remind people that we don't have to take this.
The recent IRS scandal is a prime example of what the Hatch Act is about. The problem is when the DOJ turns a blind eye to the problem and again, for political reasons.
I think that it is a good thing that belonging to or believing in an anti-American activity like socialism, communism, or other political parties is not enforced according to the Hatch Act.
These extreme restrictions like the McCarthy Act in the 1950s caused such a stir and a lot of unwarranted suspicion. Many people were falsely accused to being communist or socialist and lost their job or their reputation.
In the Hatch Act, this portion is not really enforced, but just kind of discourages overt activity that is contrary to our constitutional beliefs.
The Hatch Act allows government workers to give some of their time voluntarily in helping with a political campaign. But this is only if they do this in a way that doesn't involve their governmental job. There is a very fine line between personal and employee interest in a campaign. It would be difficult to enforce this part of the regulation.
It seems kind of useless to allow participation in a political campaign when it is on a personal basis only. It would be so hard to tell the difference. How could all the government workers be monitored?
I'm not so sure that the Hatch Act is being applied equally in all states. A friend of mine said that his relative is currently running for office despite being a civilian federal employee in Maryland. Apparently, there are some other states which allow this, although most of the states do not.
Isn't this against the Constitution? Why is it not being applied equally everywhere?
According to a recent article I read, political leaders violate the Hatch Act very often but nothing is generally done about it.
Apparently in one of the elections where George W. Bush won, his office often had federal employees work on his party's preparations for the elections even though it had nothing to do with their job.
This is clearly a violation of the Hatch Act, but the problem is that we don't know for sure if these federal employees volunteered to do this work or were required to do it by their superiors.
If they were required to do it, I don't think it would be fair to punish them for this violation. It would make more sense to hold the Republican Party and the superiors in these federal offices accountable.
This Act makes a lot of sense because if federal employees get involved in partisan activities, we cannot be sure if they are using their federal office to pursue their partisan objectives instead of just doing their job.
I think this could be categorized as a clash of interests because federal employees are responsible towards the government which they are working for, not a specific political party.
Getting partisan interests involved in their daily job would complicate everything and it would make it very easy for federal employees to misuse their powers in a wrong way.
I'm not sure if this applies, but I have two good friends, a married couple, and they both work for their local governments. They are prohibited from putting political bumper stickers on their car, having signs in their front yard, offering public comment on the issues or being prominently photographed at a political rally.
I guess that all of these things make sense, you don't want public officials to have an agenda, but they are both low level officials. One is an accountant and the other is a cop. You don't really think about low level employees like these having all the responsibility of neutrality that our highest elected officials have.
Do you know that old saying, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? This is unfortunately true in my experience. Any time you give people special privileges they will inevitable end up abusing them. And the bigger the privileged, the bigger the abuse.
There are good politicians and government employees. But there are also lots of bad ones. And the temptation to take bribes or corrupt themselves in other ways is more intense than any of us realize. It is a shame that we need to institutionalize controls against this kind of behavior, but it is inevitable.
Post your comments