No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Federal Restrictions on the Political Activity of Government Employees
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
At various times in the past, the question of the extent to which political activity on the part of government officers and employees should be curtailed has been a subject of public discussion. Within the past two years, the question has arisen again in connection with the passage by Congress of what is popularly known as the Hatch Act. The purpose of the present article is to point out the principal restrictions imposed by this new, as well as by earlier, federal legislation upon the political activity of individual government employees. These restrictions are of three types: (1) those relating to political contributions and solicitation, (2) those relating to political office-holding, and (3) those relating to political activity generally. Each of these types will be discussed, first, in relation to federal employees, and second, in relation to employees of state and local governments.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1941
References
1 There are in reality two Hatch Acts. The first, Public—No. 252—76th Congress was passed in 1939; the second, Public—No. 753—76th Congress, in 1940.
2 The term “federal employees” as here used does not include persons who are on federal relief. Sec. 5 of the first Hatch Act forbids any person to solicit or receive contributions from relief workers, and Sec. 6 makes it unlawful for any person to give or to receive lists of such persons for political purposes.
3 Now a felony, since all offenses punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year are declared by law to be felonies. Code of the Laws of the United States (1934), p. 766.
4 Civil Service Act and Rules, Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations, U. S. Civil Service Commission (1939), p. 11.Google Scholar
5 24 Opinions of the Attorney General, p. 133; Political Activity and Political Assessments of Federal Officeholders and Employees, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Form 1236 (1939), p. 18.Google Scholar
6 United States v. Thayer, 209 U. S. 39 (1908).
7 New York Times, Oct. 18, 1940.
8 Political Activity and Political Assessments of Federal Officeholders and Employees, p. 9.
9 See below.
10 Clark, Jane P., The Rise of a New Federalism, pp. 82–83.Google Scholar
11 See Political Activity and Political Assessments of Federal Officeholders and Employees, pp. 10–15.
12 The privilege was extended also in 1931 to all federal employees residing in Arlington county, Virginia. Ibid., pp. 16–17.
13 Annual Report of the United States Civil Service Commission, 1928, p. 22; ibid. 1929, p. 19.
14 See below.
15 In a subsequent opinion (April 17, 1940), the Attorney General ruled that “if one acquires an elective office without being a candidate therefor and without actually taking any part in any political campaign or political management… his acceptance and holding of the office is not to be viewed differently than if it were an appointive office—the statute being directed at political activity rather than the holding of public office.”
16 Information supplied by the U. S. Civil Service Commission.
17 Fourth Annual Report of the United States Civil Service Commission, 1885–86, pp. 541–542.
18 P. 20.
19 Nineteenth Annual Report of the United States Civil Service Commission, 1901–02, p. 20.
20 Sec. 9.
21 Sec. 15.
22 Opinion delivered Jan. 8, 1941. This interpretation follows the opinion expressed by President Roosevelt at the time he signed the first Hatch Act. The President stated at that time: “I have been asked whether they [government employees] would lose their positions if they should merely express their opinion or preference publicly—orally, by radio, or in writing—without doing so as part of an organized political campaign. The answer is no.” Pernicious Political Activities; Message from the President of the United States Relating to Senate Bill 1871, Sen. Doc. No. 105, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2.
23 Sec. 9A.
24 Sec. 18.
25 Although Sec. 15 provides that the political activities which are forbidden by Sec. 9 shall be the same as those which were prohibited to classified employees by the Civil Service Commission at the time the law went into effect, Sec. 10 declares that the provisions of the act shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any other provision of law.
26 Political Activity and Political Assessments of Federal Officeholders and Employees, p. 3.
27 Ibid., p. 5.
28 See Relative to Pernicious Political Activities, by the Attorney General of the United States, Sen. Doc. No. 135, 76th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1939); and Political Activity and Political Assessments of Federal Officeholders and Employees, Form 1236, U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1939.
29 Ibid., p. 7.
30 Code of the Laws of the United States (1934), p. 85.
31 Political Activity and Political Assessments of Federal Officeholders and Employees, p. 8.
32 Pernicious Political Activities; Message from the President of the United States Relating to Senate Bill 1871, Sen. Doc. No. 105, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.
33 Press Release, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Aug. 8, 1940.
34 Sec. 9A (2).
35 Opinion delivered Jan. 8, 1941.
36 Pernicious Political Activities, Message from the President of the United States Relating to Senate Bill 1871, p. 4.
37 Political Activity and Political Assessments, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Form 1236-A, p. 13.
38 Press Release, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Sept. 7, 1940.
39 Political Activity and Political Assessments, Form 12S6-A, p. 12.
40 Interpretations of the Hatch Act and Regulations on Political Activity, U. S. Civil Service Commission.
41 Code of the Laws of the United States (1934), p. 969.
42 Interpretations of the Hatch Act and Regulations on Political Activity, as cited.
43 Code of the Laws of the United States (1934), pp. 135–136.
44 Code of the Lawa of the United States (1934), p. 905.
45 Ibid., p. 663.
46 Ibid., p. 1344.
47 Ibid., pp. 1853–1854.
48 In the case of the act of 1908, it is necessary for Congress to authorize the appropriation annually. Some control over funds collected under the act of 1934 is exercised by the Secretary of the Interior.
49 In 1937, thirty-nine states and two territories received forest-reserve funds. Covert, Timon, Federal Funds for Education, 1937–38 (Leaflet No. 54, United States Department of the Interior), p. 21.Google Scholar Ten states received grazing-district funds in 1940. Figures are not available regarding the number of counties among which the funds were distributed.
50 In 1937, fifteen states received mineral-royalty funds. Ibid., p. 22.
51 The act of 1920 provides that the grants shall be used for public roads or public education; the acts of 1908 and 1934 use the conjunction “and.”
52 See Hill, D. S. and Fisher, W. A., Federal Relations to Education (Report of the National Advisory Committee on Education: Part II, Basic Facts), pp. 30–34Google Scholar; also Swift, F. H., Federal and State Policies in Public School Finance in the United States, pp. 26, 31.Google Scholar
53 See Starr, Joseph R., “The Hatch Act and Academic Freedom,” Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, Vol. 27 (Feb., 1941), pp. 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 Sec. 12(b)–12(d).
55 The only investigation which has been authorized so far is of employees in certain departments of the Illinois state government. Press Release, U, S. Civil Service Commission, Mar. 13, 1941.
56 It will be observed that the penalty is imposed upon the state if the discharged person is employed by any state or local agency in any capacity whatever within 18 months after his discharge.
57 106 U. S. 371.
58 280 U. S. 396.
59 155 Mass. 216; 29 N. E. 517 (1892).
60 296 Pac. 857.
61 262 U. S. 447 (1923).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.