Hatch Act: Difference between revisions

Hatch Act (view source)

Revision as of 21:56, 16 January 2025

101 bytes added , 16 January

General fixes & manual cleanup, replaced: Secretary of State → Secretary of State, typo(s) fixed: Nevertheless → Nevertheless,

VisualWikitext

Anonymous user

wikipedia>GoingBatty

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ==Provisions==
 {{Expand section |date=October 2024 |talksection=Exemption language appears to cover cabinet members |small=no |with=Applicability to cabinet secretaries despite exemption language?}}
-The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support. It provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:<ref name=outside>{{cite news |title=Envoys Declared Outside Hatch Act |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1940/10/24/112770836.pdf |access-date=6 September 2012 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=24 October 1940}}{{subscription required}}</ref>
+The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support. It provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:<ref name=outside>{{cite news |title=Envoys Declared Outside Hatch Act |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1940/10/24/112770836.pdf |access-date=6 September 2012 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=24 October 1940}}{{subscription required}}</ref>
 * (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
 * (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ==Supreme Court challenges==
-{{see|United Public Workers v. Mitchell|United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers}}
+{{further|United Public Workers v. Mitchell|United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers}}
-The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has several times declined to hear challenges to the act and has twice upheld its constitutionality. In a 1947 case brought by the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations|CIO]], a divided court found that Congress had properly exercised its authority as long as it had not affected voting rights. Justice [[William O. Douglas]] objected to the assertion that "clean politics" required the act's restrictions: "it would hardly seem to be imperative to muzzle millions of citizens because some of them, if left to their constitutional freedoms, might corrupt the political process."<ref>{{cite news|last=Walz|first=Jay|title=CIO Fails in Highest Court to Void 'Clean Politics' Act|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1947/02/11/93788947.pdf|access-date=June 12, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=February 11, 1947}}</ref> In 1973, in a case brought by the National Association of Letter Carriers, a 6 to 3 decision found the act neither too broad nor unclear. The court's three most liberal justices, Douglas, [[William J. Brennan]], and [[Thurgood Marshall]], dissented. Douglas wrote: "It is no concern of government what an employee does in his or her spare time, whether religion, recreation, social work or politics is his hobby, unless what he or she does impairs efficiency or other facets of the merits of his job."<ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Upholds Hatch Act, 6–3; Says Curbs on Political Activity Are Fair |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/06/26/90448889.pdf |access-date=June 12, 2013 |newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 26, 1973}}</ref>
+The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has several times declined to hear challenges to the act and has twice upheld its constitutionality. In a 1947 case brought by the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations|CIO]], a divided court found that Congress had properly exercised its authority as long as it had not affected voting rights. Justice [[William O. Douglas]] objected to the assertion that "clean politics" required the act's restrictions: "it would hardly seem to be imperative to muzzle millions of citizens because some of them, if left to their constitutional freedoms, might corrupt the political process."<ref>{{cite news|last=Walz|first=Jay|title=CIO Fails in Highest Court to Void 'Clean Politics' Act|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1947/02/11/93788947.pdf|access-date=June 12, 2013|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=February 11, 1947}}</ref> In 1973, in a case brought by the National Association of Letter Carriers, a 6 to 3 decision found the act neither too broad nor unclear. The court's three most liberal justices, Douglas, [[William J. Brennan]], and [[Thurgood Marshall]], dissented. Douglas wrote: "It is no concern of government what an employee does in his or her spare time, whether religion, recreation, social work or politics is his hobby, unless what he or she does impairs efficiency or other facets of the merits of his job."<ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Upholds Hatch Act, 6–3; Says Curbs on Political Activity Are Fair |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/06/26/90448889.pdf |access-date=June 12, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 26, 1973}}</ref>
 ==Amendments==
-In 1975, the House passed legislation allowing federal employees to participate in partisan elections and run for office, but the Senate took no action.<ref>{{cite news|last=Madden|first=Richard|title=Congressional Session Marked by Clashes with Ford on Energy and Tax Cut|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/12/21/355379892.pdf|access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=December 21, 1975}}</ref> In 1976, Democrats who controlled Congress had sought to win support by adding protections against the coercion of employees by their superiors and federal employee unions had supported the legislation. It passed the House on a vote of 241 to 164 and the Senate on a vote of 54 to 36. President [[Gerald Ford|Ford]] vetoed the legislation on April 12. He noted that coercion could be too subtle for the law to eliminate and that the Supreme Court had said in 1973 that the Hatch Act had achieved "a delicate balance between fair and effective government and the First Amendment rights of individual employees".<ref>{{cite news|last=Naughton|first=James M.|title=Ford Vetoes Bill to Ease Hatch Act|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1976/04/13/92222459.pdf|access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 13, 1976}}</ref> President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]] proposed similar legislation in 1977.<ref>{{cite news|last=Weaver, Jr.|first=Warren|title=Carter Proposes End of Electoral College in Presidential Votes|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1977/03/23/75054281.pdf|access-date=13 June 2013 |newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 23, 1977}}</ref>
+In 1975, the House passed legislation allowing federal employees to participate in partisan elections and run for office, but the Senate took no action.<ref>{{cite news|last=Madden|first=Richard|title=Congressional Session Marked by Clashes with Ford on Energy and Tax Cut|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/12/21/355379892.pdf|access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=December 21, 1975}}</ref> In 1976, Democrats who controlled Congress had sought to win support by adding protections against the coercion of employees by their superiors and federal employee unions had supported the legislation. It passed the House on a vote of 241 to 164 and the Senate on a vote of 54 to 36. President [[Gerald Ford|Ford]] vetoed the legislation on April 12. He noted that coercion could be too subtle for the law to eliminate and that the Supreme Court had said in 1973 that the Hatch Act had achieved "a delicate balance between fair and effective government and the First Amendment rights of individual employees".<ref>{{cite news|last=Naughton|first=James M.|title=Ford Vetoes Bill to Ease Hatch Act|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1976/04/13/92222459.pdf|access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 13, 1976}}</ref> President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]] proposed similar legislation in 1977.<ref>{{cite news|last=Weaver, Jr.|first=Warren|title=Carter Proposes End of Electoral College in Presidential Votes|url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1977/03/23/75054281.pdf|access-date=13 June 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=March 23, 1977}}</ref>
-A proposed amendment to permit federal workers to participate in political campaigns passed the House on a 305 to 112 vote in 1987.<ref name=curbs>{{cite news|last=Pear|first=Robert |title=House Approves Bill to Lift Curbs On Federal Employees in Politics|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/18/us/house-approves-bill-to-lift-curbs-on-federal-employees-in-politics.html|access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times |date=November 18, 1987}}</ref> In 1990, a similar bill passed the House on a vote of 334 to 87 and the Senate on a vote of 67 to 30. President [[George H. W. Bush]] vetoed the legislation,<ref>{{cite news |last=Dowd |first=Maureen |title=President Vetoes a Bill and Makes a Threat on Second|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/16/us/president-vetoes-a-bill-and-makes-threat-on-second.html |access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 16, 1990}}</ref> which the House voted to override 327 to 93  and the Senate sustained on a vote of 65 to 35, with 55 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting to override and 35 Republicans supporting the president's veto.<ref>{{cite news|last=Berke|first=Richard L.|title=Senate Upholds Veto of Bill On U.S. Workers in Politics|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/22/us/senate-upholds-veto-of-bill-on-us-workers-in-politics.html |access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 22, 1990}}</ref>
+A proposed amendment to permit federal workers to participate in political campaigns passed the House on a 305 to 112 vote in 1987.<ref name=curbs>{{cite news|last=Pear|first=Robert |title=House Approves Bill to Lift Curbs On Federal Employees in Politics|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/18/us/house-approves-bill-to-lift-curbs-on-federal-employees-in-politics.html|access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=November 18, 1987}}</ref> In 1990, a similar bill passed the House on a vote of 334 to 87 and the Senate on a vote of 67 to 30. President [[George H. W. Bush]] vetoed the legislation,<ref>{{cite news |last=Dowd |first=Maureen |title=President Vetoes a Bill and Makes a Threat on Second|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/16/us/president-vetoes-a-bill-and-makes-threat-on-second.html |access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 16, 1990}}</ref> which the House voted to override 327 to 93  and the Senate sustained on a vote of 65 to 35, with 55 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting to override and 35 Republicans supporting the president's veto.<ref>{{cite news|last=Berke|first=Richard L.|title=Senate Upholds Veto of Bill On U.S. Workers in Politics|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/22/us/senate-upholds-veto-of-bill-on-us-workers-in-politics.html |access-date=June 13, 2013|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 22, 1990}}</ref>
 In 1993 the advocates for removing or modifying restrictions on the political activities of federal employees succeeded in enacting the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 (107 Stat. 1001) that removed the prohibition on participation in "political management or political campaigns". Federal employees are still forbidden to use their authority to affect the results of an election. They are also forbidden to run for office in a partisan election, to solicit or receive political contributions, and to engage in political activities while on duty or on federal property.<ref>[http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/103/94.pdf Public Law 103-94 – Oct. 6, 1993] and Congressional Research Service (Cynthia Brown and Jack Marshall) [http://www.ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/crs/R44469_2016-04-13.pdf "Hatch Act Restrictions on Federal Employees' Political Activities in the Digital Age"]. April 13, 2016, p. 4.</ref>
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 * In 2006, the [[Utah Democratic Party]] challenged the candidacy of Ogden City Police Chief [[Jon Greiner]] for State Senate. The challenge was upheld by the [[United States Office of Special Counsel]] (OSC) because the year prior the Ogden City Police Department received a federal grant to help pay for bulletproof vests. Jon Greiner appealed the decision, remained on the ballot, won the election and served one term (2006–2010) as Utah State Senator while the results of the appeal were unknown.<ref>{{cite news|last=Loftin|first=Josh|title=Police chief plans to stay in Senate race|url=http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650203448,00.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120707153726/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650203448,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 7, 2012|newspaper=[[Deseret Morning News]]|date=November 1, 2006|access-date=July 8, 2012}}</ref>
 * In January 2007, the OSC announced the results of investigations into whether certain events during the election campaigns of 2004 and 2006 violated the Hatch Act.<ref>{{cite press release|title=OSC: High Level NASA Hatch Investigations Present Cautionary Tale|url=http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2007/pr07_04.htm|website=OSC.gov|date=January 29, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205221645/http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2007/pr07_04.htm|archive-date=February 5, 2007|access-date=June 16, 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref>
- It found no violation when [[Kennedy Space Center]] officials allowed Senator [[John Kerry]]'s presidential campaign to use a NASA facility for a 2004 campaign event, because no government employees worked at the facility in question. It found streaming the event to NASA employees and contractors violated the Hatch Act.
+** It found no violation when [[Kennedy Space Center]] officials allowed Senator [[John Kerry]]'s presidential campaign to use a NASA facility for a 2004 campaign event, because no government employees worked at the facility in question. It found streaming the event to NASA employees and contractors violated the Hatch Act.
- It reviewed a 2006 speech by NASA Administrator [[Michael D. Griffin]] in which he appeared to endorse Representative [[Tom DeLay]] for re-election. It determined that he "should have exercised better judgment" and took no further action.
+** It reviewed a 2006 speech by NASA Administrator [[Michael D. Griffin]] in which he appeared to endorse Representative [[Tom DeLay]] for re-election. It determined that he "should have exercised better judgment" and took no further action.
 * In June 2007, the OSC found that [[Lurita Alexis Doan]], Administrator of the [[General Services Administration]], violated the Hatch Act when she took part in a video conference with [[Karl Rove]] and other White House officials, and sent letters asking how to help [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] politicians get elected.<ref>"Doan's fate up to president; Hatch Act violation could prompt firing". ''Federal Times''. May 28, 2007.</ref>
-* In December 2007, Vigo County Superior Court Judge David Bolk ruled that the [[List of mayors of Terre Haute, Indiana|mayor-elect of Terre Haute (Indiana)]] Duke Bennett was covered by the Hatch Act when he was candidate for mayor because he had been director of operations for the Hamilton Center (a medical facility)<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.hamiltoncenter.org |title=Home |work=Hamilton Center Inc |access-date=23 August 2020}}</ref> when he ran for mayor, and the Hamilton Center was receiving federal funding for its [[Head Start (program)|Head Start program]]. Nevertheless Bennett was allowed to take office, because Judge Bolk ruled that the legal challenge had been brought too late to prevent this. In November 2008 "Indiana Court of Appeals in a 2–1 decision found that the Hatch Act did apply to Bennett and called for a special election to fill the office of Terre Haute mayor."<ref name=TerreHaute19Nov08>{{cite news| url=http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/mayor-maintains-he-did-not-violate-little-hatch-act-in/article_f4b8889d-af27-58ef-b6ea-f3f42dcf191b.html |title=Mayor maintains he did not violate Little Hatch Act in seeking office |first1=Arthur E. |last1=Foulkes |date=19 November 2008 |work=[[Tribune-Star]]}}</ref> In June 2009, [[Indiana Supreme Court]] ruled that Bennett could remain in office because the challenge had been brought by Bennett's opponent after the election, and therefore Bennett was no longer a candidate, but mayor-elect at the time and was no longer in violation of the act.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newsandtribune.com/news/local_news/indiana-supreme-court-rules-terre-haute-mayor-can-keep-office/article_c59d5f60-c046-5cca-ada0-98e50f13f105.html |title=Indiana Supreme Court rules Terre Haute mayor can keep office |date=17 June 2009 |work=[[News and Tribune]]}}<br />{{citation |url=http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06160901bd.pdf |title=Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett |work=Indiana Supreme Court |date=16 June 2009}}</ref>
+* In December 2007, Vigo County Superior Court Judge David Bolk ruled that the [[List of mayors of Terre Haute, Indiana|mayor-elect of Terre Haute (Indiana)]] Duke Bennett was covered by the Hatch Act when he was candidate for mayor because he had been director of operations for the Hamilton Center (a medical facility)<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.hamiltoncenter.org |title=Home |work=Hamilton Center Inc |access-date=23 August 2020}}</ref> when he ran for mayor, and the Hamilton Center was receiving federal funding for its [[Head Start (program)|Head Start program]]. Nevertheless, Bennett was allowed to take office, because Judge Bolk ruled that the legal challenge had been brought too late to prevent this. In November 2008 "Indiana Court of Appeals in a 2–1 decision found that the Hatch Act did apply to Bennett and called for a special election to fill the office of Terre Haute mayor."<ref name=TerreHaute19Nov08>{{cite news| url=http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/mayor-maintains-he-did-not-violate-little-hatch-act-in/article_f4b8889d-af27-58ef-b6ea-f3f42dcf191b.html |title=Mayor maintains he did not violate Little Hatch Act in seeking office |first1=Arthur E. |last1=Foulkes |date=19 November 2008 |work=[[Tribune-Star]]}}</ref> In June 2009, [[Indiana Supreme Court]] ruled that Bennett could remain in office because the challenge had been brought by Bennett's opponent after the election, and therefore Bennett was no longer a candidate, but mayor-elect at the time and was no longer in violation of the act.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newsandtribune.com/news/local_news/indiana-supreme-court-rules-terre-haute-mayor-can-keep-office/article_c59d5f60-c046-5cca-ada0-98e50f13f105.html |title=Indiana Supreme Court rules Terre Haute mayor can keep office |date=17 June 2009 |work=[[News and Tribune]]}}<br />{{citation |url=http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06160901bd.pdf |title=Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett |work=Indiana Supreme Court |date=16 June 2009}}</ref>
-* On May 6, 2008, [[FBI]] agents raided OSC offices and the home office of its director, [[Scott Bloch]]. The raids related to an investigation into allegations that Bloch's office had attempted to [[obstruction of justice|obstruct justice]] by hiring an outside company to delete computer files beyond recovery in order to prevent authorities from proving Bloch had violated the Hatch Act by retaliating against whistle-blowers in his office, an independent U.S. government agency "charged with protecting the rights of government whistle-blowers".<ref>{{cite news|last=Rood|first=Justin|title=FBI Raids Bush Official's Office|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4797325&page=1|website=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]|date=May 6, 2008|access-date=February 10, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Shenon|first=Philip|title=F.B.I. Raids Office of Special Counsel|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/washington/07inquire.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=May 7, 2008|access-date=February 12, 2013}}</ref>
+* On May 6, 2008, [[FBI]] agents raided OSC offices and the home office of its director, [[Scott Bloch]]. The raids related to an investigation into allegations that Bloch's office had attempted to [[obstruction of justice|obstruct justice]] by hiring an outside company to delete computer files beyond recovery in order to prevent authorities from proving Bloch had violated the Hatch Act by retaliating against whistle-blowers in his office, an independent U.S. government agency "charged with protecting the rights of government whistle-blowers".<ref>{{cite news|last=Rood|first=Justin|title=FBI Raids Bush Official's Office|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4797325&page=1|website=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]|date=May 6, 2008|access-date=February 10, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Shenon|first=Philip|title=F.B.I. Raids Office of Special Counsel|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/washington/07inquire.html|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=May 7, 2008|access-date=February 12, 2013}}</ref>
 ===Obama administration===
 * On September 13, 2012, the OSC charged Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] with violating the Hatch Act by making a political speech during an official government event. Sebelius later said she had made a mistake and that the error was "technical" in nature.<ref>{{cite news|title=White House indicates Sebelius won't be punished over Hatch Act violation|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-indicates-sebelius-wont-be-punished-over-hatch-act-violation/|publisher=[[Fox News]]|date=September 13, 2012|access-date=September 17, 2012}}</ref>
 * On July 18, 2016, the OSC concluded that [[Housing and Urban Development Secretary]] [[Julian Castro]] violated the Hatch Act during an interview with [[Katie Couric]].  Castro admitted the violation, but denied any intent to violate the act.<ref>{{cite news|first=Gregory|last=Korte|title=Investigation: HUD Secretary Julian Castro broke law by endorsing Clinton|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/18/investigation-hud-secretary-julian-castro-broke-law-endorsing-clinton-hatch-act/87263314/|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date=July 18, 2016|access-date=July 20, 2016}}</ref>
-* On October 30, 2016, U.S. Senate Democratic Minority Leader [[Harry Reid]] stated that FBI Director [[James Comey]] may have violated the Hatch Act by sending a letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, which stated that the FBI would be reopening its investigation of the [[Hillary Clinton email controversy]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Harry Reid says FBI Director James Comey 'may have broken' federal law|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harry-reid-says-fbi-director-james-comey-may-have-broken-federal-law|website=[[Fox News]]|date=October 30, 2016|access-date=June 16, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Letter to Congress From F.B.I. Director on Clinton Email Case|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0|newspaper=The New York Times|date=October 28, 2016|access-date=October 28, 2016}}</ref> Also on October 30, [[Richard Painter]], a chief White House ethics lawyer for the [[George W. Bush administration]], published an op-ed saying that he had filed a complaint against the FBI with the OSC and with the [[Office of Government Ethics]] about the same matter.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Painter|first1=Richard W.|title=On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=October 30, 2016|access-date=June 16, 2019}}</ref>
+* On October 30, 2016, U.S. Senate Democratic Minority Leader [[Harry Reid]] stated that FBI Director [[James Comey]] may have violated the Hatch Act by sending a letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, which stated that the FBI would be reopening its investigation of the [[Hillary Clinton email controversy]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Harry Reid says FBI Director James Comey 'may have broken' federal law|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harry-reid-says-fbi-director-james-comey-may-have-broken-federal-law|website=[[Fox News]]|date=October 30, 2016|access-date=June 16, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Letter to Congress From F.B.I. Director on Clinton Email Case|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=October 28, 2016|access-date=October 28, 2016}}</ref> Also on October 30, [[Richard Painter]], a chief White House ethics lawyer for the [[George W. Bush administration]], published an op-ed saying that he had filed a complaint against the FBI with the OSC and with the [[Office of Government Ethics]] about the same matter.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Painter|first1=Richard W.|title=On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=October 30, 2016|access-date=June 16, 2019}}</ref>
 * In November 2016, two San Francisco Bay Area federal employees who were elected to school boards were told that they would have to resign their federal positions in order to serve on the boards, as their running for a non-partisan seat that had party political involvement contravened the Hatch Act. Both Jerrold Parsons, President of the John Swett Unified School District, and Mary Ann Nihart, Vice Mayor of Pacifica, chose not to serve in order to retain their federal jobs.<ref>{{cite web|title=Hatch Act torpedoes Bay Area officials' re-election bids|url=https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/05/hatch-act-torpedoes-bay-area-officials-re-election-bids/|website=East Bay Times|date=5 November 2016|access-date=5 November 2016}}</ref>
 ===Trump administration===
-* In June 2017, the OSC issued a warning to White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications [[Dan Scavino Jr.]] for an April 2017 [[Twitter|tweet]] that Scavino sent advocating for a primary challenge against U.S. Representative [[Justin Amash]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Lipton |first=Eric |title=White House Official's Political Tweet Was Illegal, Agency Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/politics/dan-scavino-hatch-act-amash.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 9, 2017 |access-date=June 20, 2017}}</ref>
+* In June 2017, the OSC issued a warning to White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications [[Dan Scavino Jr.]] for an April 2017 [[Twitter|tweet]] that Scavino sent advocating for a primary challenge against U.S. Representative [[Justin Amash]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Lipton |first=Eric |title=White House Official's Political Tweet Was Illegal, Agency Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/politics/dan-scavino-hatch-act-amash.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=June 9, 2017 |access-date=June 20, 2017}}</ref>
-* In October 2017, the OSC issued a warning to [[United States Ambassador to the United Nations]] [[Nikki Haley]] over a June 2017 tweet that she retweeted from President [[Donald Trump]] endorsing Republican Congressional candidate [[Ralph Norman]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Zachary|title=UN ambassador Nikki Haley warned over Trump retweet|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/nikki-haley-hatch-act-violation/index.html|publisher=CNN|date=October 3, 2017|access-date=October 4, 2017}}</ref>
+* In October 2017, the OSC issued a warning to [[United States Ambassador to the United Nations]] [[Nikki Haley]] over a June 2017 tweet that she retweeted from President [[Donald Trump]] endorsing Republican Congressional candidate [[Ralph Norman]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Zachary|title=UN ambassador Nikki Haley warned over Trump retweet|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/nikki-haley-hatch-act-violation/index.html|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=October 3, 2017|access-date=October 4, 2017}}</ref>
-* In November 2017, former [[United States Office of Government Ethics|Office of Government Ethics]] head [[Walter Shaub]] filed a complaint against White House counselor [[Kellyanne Conway]] charging that her opposition to [[Roy Moore]] opponent [[Doug Jones (politician)|Doug Jones]] during a segment on ''[[Fox and Friends]]'' violated the Hatch Act.<ref>{{cite news|last=Gerstein|first=Josh|title=Legal complaint filed over Kellyanne Conway's comments on Roy Moore race|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/22/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act-complaint-doug-jones-comment-259147|website=[[Politico]]|date=November 22, 2017|access-date=November 23, 2017}}</ref> In March 2018, the OSC announced that Conway violated the Hatch Act on that occasion and one other.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lee|first=MJ|title=Office of Special Counsel: Conway violated Hatch Act|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act/index.html|website=CNN|date=March 6, 2018|access-date=March 6, 2018}}</ref>
+* In November 2017, former [[United States Office of Government Ethics|Office of Government Ethics]] head [[Walter Shaub]] filed a complaint against White House counselor [[Kellyanne Conway]] charging that her opposition to [[Roy Moore]] opponent [[Doug Jones (politician)|Doug Jones]] during a segment on ''[[Fox and Friends]]'' violated the Hatch Act.<ref>{{cite news|last=Gerstein|first=Josh|title=Legal complaint filed over Kellyanne Conway's comments on Roy Moore race|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/22/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act-complaint-doug-jones-comment-259147|website=[[Politico]]|date=November 22, 2017|access-date=November 23, 2017}}</ref> In March 2018, the OSC announced that Conway violated the Hatch Act on that occasion and one other.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lee|first=MJ|title=Office of Special Counsel: Conway violated Hatch Act|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act/index.html|website=[[CNN]]|date=March 6, 2018|access-date=March 6, 2018}}</ref>
-*In February 2018, [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC]] Commissioner [[Michael O'Rielly]], in a speech at the [[Conservative Political Action Conference]], "advocated for the reelection of President Trump in his official capacity as FCC Commissioner".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kumar|first=Anita|date=2019-05-15|title=Complaints grow that Trump staffers are campaigning for their boss|url=https://politi.co/2vZY69a|access-date=2020-10-27|website=[[Politico]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Neidig|first=Harper|date=2018-05-01|title=Watchdog finds FCC commissioner violated Hatch Act during CPAC appearance|url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/385729-watchdog-finds-fcc-commissioner-violated-ethics-law-during-cpac-appearance|access-date=2020-10-27|website=[[The Hill (newspaper) | The Hill]]|language=en}}</ref>
+*In February 2018, [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC]] Commissioner [[Michael O'Rielly]], in a speech at the [[Conservative Political Action Conference]], "advocated for the reelection of President Trump in his official capacity as FCC Commissioner".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kumar|first=Anita|date=2019-05-15|title=Complaints grow that Trump staffers are campaigning for their boss|url=https://politi.co/2vZY69a|access-date=2020-10-27|website=[[Politico]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Neidig|first=Harper|date=2018-05-01|title=Watchdog finds FCC commissioner violated Hatch Act during CPAC appearance|url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/385729-watchdog-finds-fcc-commissioner-violated-ethics-law-during-cpac-appearance|access-date=2020-10-27|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en}}</ref>
-* In September 2018, the OSC issued a warning letter to [[Stephanie Grisham]], the Press Secretary and Communications Director for the First Lady of the United States, for violating the act by including Trump's campaign slogan in a post on her government Twitter account.<ref>{{cite news|last=Bennett|first=Kate|title=Melania Trump's spokeswoman reprimanded for Hatch Act violation|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/melania-trump-stephanie-grisham-hatch-act/index.html|website=CNN|date=September 21, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Kwong|first=Jessica|date=2019-06-28|title=The Trump administration has a major Hatch Act problem. Here's every official accused of breaking the federal law|url=https://www.newsweek.com/hatch-act-violations-trump-administration-conway-1446406|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[Newsweek]]|language=en}}</ref>
+* In September 2018, the OSC issued a warning letter to [[Stephanie Grisham]], the Press Secretary and Communications Director for the First Lady of the United States, for violating the act by including Trump's campaign slogan in a post on her government Twitter account.<ref>{{cite news|last=Bennett|first=Kate|title=Melania Trump's spokeswoman reprimanded for Hatch Act violation|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/melania-trump-stephanie-grisham-hatch-act/index.html|website=[[CNN]]|date=September 21, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Kwong|first=Jessica|date=2019-06-28|title=The Trump administration has a major Hatch Act problem. Here's every official accused of breaking the federal law|url=https://www.newsweek.com/hatch-act-violations-trump-administration-conway-1446406|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[Newsweek]]|language=en}}</ref>
-* In November 2018, the OSC ruled that six [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration]] officials violated the Hatch Act in posts to their government Twitter accounts, but declined to take disciplinary action. The OSC warned the officials—[[Raj Shah]], deputy press secretary; [[Jessica Ditto]], deputy director of communications; [[Madeleine Westerhout]], executive assistant to the president; [[Helen Aguirre Ferré]], former director of media affairs; [[Alyssa Farah]], press secretary for the vice president; and Jacob Wood, deputy communications director of the Office of Management and Budget—that future infractions would be interpreted as willful violations subject to further action.<ref>{{cite news|last=Kaufman|first=Ellie|title=6 White House officials found in violation of the Hatch Act|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/six-white-house-officials-hatch-act/index.html|website=CNN|date=December 3, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018}}</ref>
+* In November 2018, the OSC ruled that six [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration]] officials violated the Hatch Act in posts to their government Twitter accounts, but declined to take disciplinary action. The OSC warned the officials—[[Raj Shah]], deputy press secretary; [[Jessica Ditto]], deputy director of communications; [[Madeleine Westerhout]], executive assistant to the president; [[Helen Aguirre Ferré]], former director of media affairs; [[Alyssa Farah]], press secretary for the vice president; and Jacob Wood, deputy communications director of the Office of Management and Budget—that future infractions would be interpreted as willful violations subject to further action.<ref>{{cite news|last=Kaufman|first=Ellie|title=6 White House officials found in violation of the Hatch Act|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/six-white-house-officials-hatch-act/index.html|website=[[CNN]]|date=December 3, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018}}</ref>
-* In June 2019, the OSC sent a letter to President Trump recommending that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be removed from federal service for repeatedly violating the Hatch Act.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-06-26|title=Violations of the Hatch Act Under the Trump Administration|url=https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/violations-of-the-hatch-act-under-the-trump-administration|access-date=2020-10-26|website=House Committee on Oversight and Reform|language=en}}</ref> This report follows the March 2018 OSC finding that Conway was a "repeat offender" for disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while in her official capacity during televised interviews and on social media.<ref name="BloombergHatchAct">{{cite news|last1=Gallu|first1=Joshua|last2=Allison|first2=Bill|title=Kellyanne Conway Should Be Removed From White House Job, U.S. Agency Says|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/ap-newsalert-federal-agency-recommends-kellyanne-conway-be-fired-for-repeat-violation-of-law-prohibiting-political|language=en|website=[[Bloomberg News | Bloomberg]]|date=June 13, 2019|access-date=June 16, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{citation |url=https://osc.gov/Resources/Report%20to%20the%20President%20re%20Kellyanne%20Conway%20Hatch%20Act.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190614221133/https://osc.gov/Resources/Report%20to%20the%20President%20re%20Kellyanne%20Conway%20Hatch%20Act.pdf |archive-date=14 June 2019 |date=13 June 2019 |title=Covering letter and Report of Prohibited Political Activity Under the Hatch Act (OSC File Nos. HA-19-0631 & HA-19-3395 (Kellyanne Conway) |work=U.S. Office of Special Counsel |first1=Henry J. |last1=Kerner}}</ref> President Trump, when asked at a press conference, stated he thought the provision violated her free speech rights.<ref name="BloombergHatchAct" />
+* In June 2019, the OSC sent a letter to President Trump recommending that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be removed from federal service for repeatedly violating the Hatch Act.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-06-26|title=Violations of the Hatch Act Under the Trump Administration|url=https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/violations-of-the-hatch-act-under-the-trump-administration|access-date=2020-10-26|website=House Committee on Oversight and Reform|language=en}}</ref> This report follows the March 2018 OSC finding that Conway was a "repeat offender" for disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while in her official capacity during televised interviews and on social media.<ref name="BloombergHatchAct">{{cite news|last1=Gallu|first1=Joshua|last2=Allison|first2=Bill|title=Kellyanne Conway Should Be Removed From White House Job, U.S. Agency Says|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/ap-newsalert-federal-agency-recommends-kellyanne-conway-be-fired-for-repeat-violation-of-law-prohibiting-political|language=en|website=[[Bloomberg News|Bloomberg]]|date=June 13, 2019|access-date=June 16, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{citation |url=https://osc.gov/Resources/Report%20to%20the%20President%20re%20Kellyanne%20Conway%20Hatch%20Act.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190614221133/https://osc.gov/Resources/Report%20to%20the%20President%20re%20Kellyanne%20Conway%20Hatch%20Act.pdf |archive-date=14 June 2019 |date=13 June 2019 |title=Covering letter and Report of Prohibited Political Activity Under the Hatch Act (OSC File Nos. HA-19-0631 & HA-19-3395 (Kellyanne Conway) |work=U.S. Office of Special Counsel |first1=Henry J. |last1=Kerner}}</ref> President Trump, when asked at a press conference, stated he thought the provision violated her free speech rights.<ref name="BloombergHatchAct" />
-*In August 2020, [[United States Department of Agriculture|Department of Agriculture]] secretary [[Sonny Perdue]] supported the president's re-election while promoting the Farmers to Families Food Box Program; Perdue was fined for violating the Hatch Act.<ref>{{Cite web|title=USDA chief violated Hatch Act by advocating for Trump re-election, gov't watchdog says|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/usda-head-perdue-violated-hatch-act-advocating-trump-re-election-n1242687|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[NBC News]]|date=9 October 2020 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Beitsch|first=Rebecca|date=2020-10-08|title=USDA's Perdue fined for violating Hatch Act while promoting food boxes|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/520240-usdas-perdue-fined-for-violating-hatch-act-while-promoting-food-boxes|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[The Hill (newspaper) | The Hill]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Mccrimmon|first=Ryan|date=2020-10-08|title=Perdue rebuked for violating ethics law by boosting Trump's reelection|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/08/perdue-ethics-trump-reelection-428018|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[Politico]]|language=en}}</ref>
+*In August 2020, [[United States Department of Agriculture|Department of Agriculture]] secretary [[Sonny Perdue]] supported the president's re-election while promoting the Farmers to Families Food Box Program; Perdue was fined for violating the Hatch Act.<ref>{{Cite web|title=USDA chief violated Hatch Act by advocating for Trump re-election, gov't watchdog says|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/usda-head-perdue-violated-hatch-act-advocating-trump-re-election-n1242687|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[NBC News]]|date=9 October 2020 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Beitsch|first=Rebecca|date=2020-10-08|title=USDA's Perdue fined for violating Hatch Act while promoting food boxes|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/520240-usdas-perdue-fined-for-violating-hatch-act-while-promoting-food-boxes|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Mccrimmon|first=Ryan|date=2020-10-08|title=Perdue rebuked for violating ethics law by boosting Trump's reelection|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/08/perdue-ethics-trump-reelection-428018|access-date=2020-10-26|website=[[Politico]]|language=en}}</ref>
-* In August 2020, President Trump announced that, as a result of the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States]], and the move of the [[2020 Republican National Convention]] to a largely online format, he would make his speech accepting the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] nomination for the [[2020 United States presidential election|presidential election]] from the [[South Lawn]] of the [[White House]]. In response, the OSC sent a letter to President Trump indicating that, while both the President and Vice President are not covered by the terms of the Hatch Act, White House staffers are, and would therefore not be able to assist with such an address. Moreover, other portions of the Convention included clips recorded at the White House, including an interview with freed hostages, and a naturalization ceremony.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/politics/trump-naturalization-ceremony-rnc.html|title=Trump Takes Night Off From Anti-Immigrant Talk to Swear In U.S. Citizens|first1=Zolan|last1=Kanno-Youngs|first2=Michael D.|last2=Shear|newspaper=The New York Times|date=August 26, 2020}}</ref> While Republicans argued that the South Lawn forms part of the President's residence, and therefore should not be classed as part of a federal building, legal experts point out that "[i]t's still illegal under the Hatch Act for any White House staffer to participate in executing a campaign photo op/video segment in the White House".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/25/rnc-white-house-convention-speeches-ethics-hatch-act-trump/5628864002/ |title=RNC: Trump criticized for using White House as a backdrop for the convention |last=Behrmann |first=Savannah |date=26 August 2020 |website=[[USA Today]] |access-date=26 August 2020 }}</ref> This could also lead to investigations for staffers that may have aided [[Secretary of State]] [[Mike Pompeo]] (but not Pompeo himself) in his convention activities as he delivered a speech while on official business in [[Jerusalem]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2020/08/feds-can-be-prosecuted-hatch-act-violations-though-pompeo-and-wolf-likely-clear/168041/|title=Feds Can Be Prosecuted for Hatch Act Violations, Though Pompeo and Wolf Are Likely in the Clear|website=Government Executive|date=27 August 2020 }}</ref>
+* In August 2020, President Trump announced that, as a result of the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States]], and the move of the [[2020 Republican National Convention]] to a largely online format, he would make his speech accepting the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] nomination for the [[2020 United States presidential election|presidential election]] from the [[South Lawn]] of the [[White House]]. In response, the OSC sent a letter to President Trump indicating that, while both the President and Vice President are not covered by the terms of the Hatch Act, White House staffers are, and would therefore not be able to assist with such an address. Moreover, other portions of the Convention included clips recorded at the White House, including an interview with freed hostages, and a naturalization ceremony.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/politics/trump-naturalization-ceremony-rnc.html|title=Trump Takes Night Off From Anti-Immigrant Talk to Swear In U.S. Citizens|first1=Zolan|last1=Kanno-Youngs|first2=Michael D.|last2=Shear|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=August 26, 2020}}</ref> While Republicans argued that the South Lawn forms part of the President's residence, and therefore should not be classed as part of a federal building, legal experts point out that "[i]t's still illegal under the Hatch Act for any White House staffer to participate in executing a campaign photo op/video segment in the White House".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/25/rnc-white-house-convention-speeches-ethics-hatch-act-trump/5628864002/ |title=RNC: Trump criticized for using White House as a backdrop for the convention |last=Behrmann |first=Savannah |date=26 August 2020 |website=[[USA Today]] |access-date=26 August 2020 }}</ref> This could also lead to investigations for staffers who may have aided [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[Mike Pompeo]] (but not Pompeo himself) in his convention activities as he delivered a speech while on official business in [[Jerusalem]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2020/08/feds-can-be-prosecuted-hatch-act-violations-though-pompeo-and-wolf-likely-clear/168041/|title=Feds Can Be Prosecuted for Hatch Act Violations, Though Pompeo and Wolf Are Likely in the Clear|website=Government Executive|date=27 August 2020 }}</ref>
 * As of mid-October 2020, 14 members of the Trump administration had been accused by [[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]] of Hatch Act violations to promote the incumbent's re-election.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/trump-administration-partisan-campaigning-hatch-act|title=Top Trump administration figures flout law banning partisan campaigning|date=October 15, 2020|website=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> By the beginning of November it was up to 16.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/sixteen-trump-administration-officials-violated-the-law-to-boost-trump-campaign-in-october/|title=Sixteen Trump administration officials violated the law to boost Trump campaign in October|website=CREW &#124; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington}}</ref> Senator Elizabeth Warren's staff released a report in which they "counted more than 54 violations of the Hatch Act by 14 administration officials dating back to 2017, as well as nearly 100 additional pending investigations for alleged violations by 22 officials".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/10/29/elizabeth-warren-trump-hatch-act-violations|title=Elizabeth Warren's office compiled a report on the Trump administration's Hatch Act violations. They counted more than 50.|website=www.boston.com}}</ref>
-* On November 5, 2020, the [[United States Office of Special Counsel]] opened an investigation into the campaign's use of the White House for campaign purposes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/524864-office-of-special-counsel-investigating-use-of-white-house-for-trump|title=Office of Special Counsel investigating use of White House for Trump campaign 'war room'|first=Brett|last=Samuels|date=November 6, 2020|website=[[The Hill (newspaper) | The Hill]]}}</ref> In January 2021, emails from before the election were reported to feature a "top" Interior department official instructing staff to reference the president's account in each post on social media.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2021/01/29/stories/1063723931|title = POLITICO Pro}}</ref>
+* On November 5, 2020, the [[United States Office of Special Counsel]] opened an investigation into the campaign's use of the White House for campaign purposes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/524864-office-of-special-counsel-investigating-use-of-white-house-for-trump|title=Office of Special Counsel investigating use of White House for Trump campaign 'war room'|first=Brett|last=Samuels|date=November 6, 2020|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]}}</ref> In January 2021, emails from before the election were reported to feature a "top" Interior department official instructing staff to reference the president's account in each post on social media.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2021/01/29/stories/1063723931|title = POLITICO Pro}}</ref>
 ===Biden administration===
-* In March 2021, Housing and Urban Development Secretary [[Marcia Fudge]] violated the Hatch Act by signaling support for Democratic candidates for the upcoming 2022 Ohio Senate election. Secretary Fudge received a warning from the [[Office of Special Counsel]] for the comments, which said, "If in the future she engages in prohibited political activity we will consider such activity to be a willful and knowing violation of the law that could result in further action."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/bidens-hud-sec-violated-hatch-act-with-election-talk-watchdog/|title=Biden's HUD secretary violated Hatch Act with election talk: watchdog|date=May 14, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/14/politics/marcia-fudge-hatch-act-violation/index.html|title=HUD Secretary Fudge violated the Hatch Act, Office of Special Counsel concludes|website=CNN|date=14 May 2021 }}</ref>
+* In March 2021, Housing and Urban Development Secretary [[Marcia Fudge]] violated the Hatch Act by signaling support for Democratic candidates for the upcoming 2022 Ohio Senate election. Secretary Fudge received a warning from the [[Office of Special Counsel]] for the comments, which said, "If in the future she engages in prohibited political activity we will consider such activity to be a willful and knowing violation of the law that could result in further action."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/bidens-hud-sec-violated-hatch-act-with-election-talk-watchdog/|title=Biden's HUD secretary violated Hatch Act with election talk: watchdog|date=May 14, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/14/politics/marcia-fudge-hatch-act-violation/index.html|title=HUD Secretary Fudge violated the Hatch Act, Office of Special Counsel concludes|website=[[CNN]]|date=14 May 2021 }}</ref>
 * In October 2021, [[White House Press Secretary]] [[Jen Psaki]] was alleged to have violated the Hatch Act by the watchdog [[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]] after she indicated that [[President Joe Biden]] supported the candidacy of Democrat [[Terry McAuliffe]] in the [[2021 Virginia gubernatorial election]]. The watchdog had previously warned, in a letter to the Biden Administration, that Psaki's statement of support in February 2021 for [[California Governor]] [[Gavin Newsom]] in the [[2021 California gubernatorial recall election]], while not a Hatch Act violation since the election was not yet certain to occur, was "closer than necessary to the situations the Hatch Act does contemplate".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/15/jen-psaki-accused-violating-hatch-act-government-watchdog-group/8470700002/|title=White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki accused of violating Hatch Act|website=[[USA Today]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/crew-sends-biden-administration-letter-on-hatch-act/|title=CREW sends Biden administration letter on Hatch Act|date=March 22, 2021|website=CREW &#124; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington}}</ref><ref>https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-3-22-Remus-Hatch-Act.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref>
 * In March 2022, President Biden fired [[Herschel Walker]] and [[Mehmet Oz]] from their positions on the [[President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition]] due to the two being active [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[United States Senate]] candidates. The terminations were a result of potential Hatch Act violations, as well as a Biden administration policy against allowing federal candidates to serve on presidential boards.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bowden |first=John |date=March 24, 2022 |title=Controversial GOP candidate Mehmet Oz fired after refusing to quit president's council on sports |work=[[The Independent]] |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/dr-oz-firing-herschel-walker-b2043332.html |access-date=July 14, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Passy |first=Charles |date=March 25, 2022 |title=Biden brings onboard chef José Andrés after cutting Mehmet Oz and Herschel Walker from presidential fitness council |work=[[MarketWatch]] |url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-president-biden-fired-herschel-walker-and-dr-mehmet-oz-from-a-federal-fitness-council-11648145113 |access-date=July 14, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Yang |first=Maya |date=March 24, 2022 |title=White House tells Dr Oz and Herschel Walker to resign from fitness council |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/24/dr-oz-herschel-walker-president-sports-council |access-date=July 14, 2022}}</ref>
-* In November 2022, by mentioning “mega MAGA Republicans” as midterm election campaigns were ongoing, Karine Jean-Pierre broke a law that prohibits federal employees from using their position to influence elections, according to federal investigators.  In the June 7 letter, the agency laid out its findings. "Because Ms. Jean‐Pierre made the statements while acting in her official capacity, she violated the Hatch Act prohibition against using her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election," Ana Galindo‐Marrone, who leads the agency's Hatch Act Unit, wrote in the letter, according to NBC.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-12 |title=White House press secretary violated Hatch Act, watchdog agency says |url=https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-press-secretary-violated-231745815.html |access-date=2023-06-13 |website=Yahoo News |language=en-US}}</ref>
+* In November 2022, by mentioning "mega MAGA Republicans" as midterm election campaigns were ongoing, Karine Jean-Pierre broke a law that prohibits federal employees from using their position to influence elections, according to federal investigators.  In the June 7 letter, the agency laid out its findings. "Because Ms. Jean‐Pierre made the statements while acting in her official capacity, she violated the Hatch Act prohibition against using her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election," Ana Galindo‐Marrone, who leads the agency's Hatch Act Unit, wrote in the letter, according to NBC.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-12 |title=White House press secretary violated Hatch Act, watchdog agency says |url=https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-press-secretary-violated-231745815.html |access-date=2023-06-13 |website=Yahoo News |language=en-US}}</ref>
 * In October 2022, the [[United States Office of Special Counsel|Office of Special Counsel]] found that [[Ron Klain]] had violated the Hatch Act and was warned not to do so again. On January 21, 2023, it was reported that Klain would resign as chief of staff in the period following the [[2023 State of the Union Address]] on February 7.
 * In July 2023, when questioned about the possibility of the cocaine found in the White House as belonging to President Biden or his son, [[Hunter Biden]], White House staffer Andrew Bates cited the Hatch Act to justify not responding to the question.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Keene |first=Houston |date=2023-07-06 |title=Experts baffled by White House invoking Hatch Act to dodge Hunter cocaine question: 'ridiculous' |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/experts-baffled-white-house-invoking-hatch-act-dodge-hunter-cocaine-question |access-date=2023-07-18 |website=Fox News |language=en-US}}</ref>
@@ Line 213: / Line 213: @@
 * [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-III/subpart-F/chapter-73/subchapter-III As codified in 5 U.S.C. chapter 73 subchapter III] of the [[United States Code]] from [[Legal Information Institute|LII]]
 * [https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title5/part3/subpartF/chapter73/subchapter3&edition=prelim As codified in 5 U.S.C. chapter 73 subchapter III] of the [[United States Code]] from the [[United States House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]]
-* https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct.aspx Discussion of Hatch Act on federal, state, and local government employees] by the [[United States Office of Special Counsel|US Office of Special Counsel]]
+* [https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct.aspx Discussion of Hatch Act on federal, state, and local government employees] by the [[United States Office of Special Counsel|US Office of Special Counsel]]
 * [http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43630.pdf Hatch Act: Candidacy for Office by Federal Employees in the Executive Branch] by the [[Congressional Research Service]] hosted by the [[Federation of American Scientists]]
@@ Line 224: / Line 224: @@
 [[Category:Civil service reform in the United States]]
 [[Category:Anti-communism in the United States]]
-[[Category:Legal history of the United States]]
+[[Category:United States federal legislation]]
 [[Category:United States federal government administration legislation]]
 [[Category:76th United States Congress]]