Talk:Hatch Act of 1939

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation needed[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Where's the stuff about using private email servers?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. MrZaiustalk 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comey's intent of letter to Congress not clear[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Comey's Actual Language[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Unclear information in the 'Background' section[edit]

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)

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)