Hatch Act

United States 1939

Synopsis

The 1939 Hatch Act places certain restrictions on executive and federal employees in regard to their participation in political activities. Certain employees of local and state government also fall under the restrictions that are codified by this law. In addition, the act prohibits federal agencies and specific types of employees from engaging in political activities of a partisan nature. Although this act became an official law after its introduction in 1939, the law is based on an executive order that had been set down by President Thomas Jefferson in 1801. The nonpartisanship principles of this act were developed not only to protect the government from its employees, but also to protect its employees from government, particularly those in government who hold positions of authority. Since its inception, the Hatch Act has been upheld in the Supreme Court, and attempts to amend it have been vetoed twice. In 1993 President Bill Clinton signed the Hatch Act Reform Amendments, loosening the law with regard to most federal and District of Columbia employees engaging in political management or campaigns. However, restrictions remain under Public Law 103-94, and the protections offered under the Hatch Act remain fully in effect.

Timeline

• 1919: With the formation of the Third International (Comintern), the Bolshevik government of Russia establishes its control over communist movements worldwide.
• 1924: In the United States, secretary of the interior Albert B. Fall, along with oil company executives Harry Sinclair and Edward L. Doheny, is charged with conspiracy and bribery in making fraudulent leases of U.S. Navy oil reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming. The resulting Teapot Dome scandal clouds the administration of President Warren G. Harding.
• 1929: The Lateran Treaty between the Catholic Church and Mussolini's regime establishes the Vatican City as an independent political entity.
• 1935: Germany annexes the Saar region after a plebiscite. In defiance of Versailles, the Nazis reintroduce compulsory military service. The Allies do nothing, and many Western intellectuals maintain that it is only proper for Germany to retake its own territory and begin building up its army again.
• 1940: Hitler's troops sweep through Western Europe, annexing Norway and Denmark in April, and in May the Low Countries and France. At the same time, Stalin—who in this year arranges the murder of Trotsky in Mexico—takes advantage of the situation to add the Baltic republics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) to the Soviet empire, where they will remain for more than half a century.
• 1940: Winston Churchill succeeds Neville Chamberlain as British prime minister in May. A month later, he tells Parliament, "We shall not flag or fail. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender." In November, German bombers begin air strikes against Britain.
• 1940: NBC makes the first official network television broadcast.
• 1945: At the Yalta Conference in February, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin make plans for Germany after its by now inevitable surrender.
• 1950: North Korean troops pour into South Korea, starting the Korean War. Initially the communists make impressive gains, but in September, the U.S. Marines land at Inchon and liberate Seoul. China responds by sending in its troops.
• 1955: African and Asian nations meet at the Bandung Conference in Indonesia, inaugurating the "non-aligned" movement of Third World countries.

Event and Its Context

Early History

Very early in the history of the United States government, politicians recognized the risks associated with government employees taking part in partisan activities. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson delivered an executive order regarding the need for the nonpartisanship of federal employees as discussed by the Office of Personnel Management in its book, The United States Civil Service Commission, Biography of an Ideal: A History of the Federal Civil Service. Although Jefferson's order was not meant to curb voting rights of federal employees, he stated that "it is expected that [a federal employee] will not attempt to influence the votes of others nor take any part in the business of electioneering, that being inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and [the employee's] duties to it."

Jefferson's executive order was in no way meant to restrict the rights of government employees, but rather to protect them from coercion stemming from partisanship. In addition, he considered the government to be a public trust that needed protection from the abuse of government officials. Presidents following Jefferson continued this effort to protect the civil service from partisanship. One such protection was the development of the federal merit system in 1883 as part of the Civil Service Reform Act. This act restricted officers and employees of the United States government from soliciting or receiving political contributions from one another. President Theodore Roosevelt continued this trend in 1907. As discussed in Robert E. Moffit's article, "Gutting the Hatch Act," Roosevelt signed an executive order that "required federal employees to take no active part in political management or in political campaigns."

The fear of partisan coercion of federal employees was not unfounded. During the Great Depression (1929-1941), several cases of partisan abuse and intimidation came to light in the federal government, including the case of Kentucky government employees who found their jobs threatened by a senator who was seeking reelection. It became evident that additional laws to protect federal workers were required to prevent abuses of power.

The 1939 Hatch Act

In 1939 Senator Carl Hatch, a Democrat from New Mexico, spearheaded the effort to create laws intended to protect federal employees from partisan intimidation. Already an advocate for such issues as antiracketeering controls and a federal minimum wage law, Hatch also wished to protect the electoral process from abuse. Hatch authored and sponsored the "Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activity," as it was originally named. Later renamed the Hatch Political Activities Act, or "Hatch Act," the proposed legislation restricted the partisan political activities of federal and District of Columbia government employees, as well as the employees of state and local agencies that were federally funded either fully or in part. The Hatch Act also extended restrictions that had been laid out by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 to include almost all employees of the executive branch of the federal government. Senator Hatch believed that the restrictions would serve to protect federal employees, maintain the public's trust in the electoral system's fairness, and provide an equitable work environment.

Later in 1939, the Democratic majorities of the House and Congress passed the Hatch Act, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt then signed it into statute as Public Law 252. From that time until 1978, the Civil Service Commission undertook the responsibility for enforcement of the Hatch Act. The act in no way prevented federal employees from exercising their right to vote. It did, however, provide the legislative teeth necessary to protect employees from any undue arm-twisting with regard to the political process. As stated by Moffit in his 1993 article, "Most federal employees understand this, and that is why most federal employees have little or no desire to become actively involved in partisan politics." In return for the restrictions placed upon them, federal employees were, and are, provided with a level of job security that is unmatched in the private sector. Indeed, the popular phrase, "I'm Hatched," about which the late historian Marjorie Fribourg often wrote, was coined by civil servants who were pleased to avoid the complications and pressure that could arise from taking a public political stand.

The Hatch Act Before 1993

One positive, although likely unforeseen, consequence of the Hatch Act was evident soon after it became law. During World War II the act protected the government and its employees from outside manipulation in a politically troubled and chaotic era. As Ellen Schrecker stated in her book The Age of McCarthyism, "The 1939 Hatch Act barred Communists, Nazis, and other totalitarians from government employment." By doing so, the public trust remained uninfluenced by radical elements.

However, since its inception in 1939, the Hatch Act has occasionally come under attack. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed that the Hatch Act is unconstitutional because it restricts the political rights of federal employees. Despite this, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in 1947 and 1973. In addition, both President Gerald Ford and President George Bush vetoed amendment bills in 1976 and 1990, respectively. The only significant change to the Hatch Act before 1993 came with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This act transferred the authority of the Civil Service Commission to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Since that time, all investigative and prosecutorial functions have been handled by the MSPB's Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

As the U.S. government changed and grew from 1939 onward, new possibilities for Hatch Act infringement arose. The sheer size of the federal government by the 1990s inspired several officials to debate whether it was time to make some changes to the Hatch Act. The addition of new federal, state, and local agencies meant that there were further opportunities for partisan pressure to arise. In 1993 the debates came to a head, and the Hatch Act underwent the amendment process.

The 1993 Hatch Act Amendments

Senator John Glenn sponsored the Hatch Act Amendments of 1993, which would allow federal employees to become more involved in partisan political activities. This took place on the heels of a similar bill, the Federal Employees Political Activities Act, which had already passed the House. Later, President Bill Clinton signed the Hatch Act Amendments of 1993 into Public Law (P.L. 103-94), thereby loosening, for some, the restrictions laid out by the Hatch Act. The amendments did not, however, dismiss the Hatch Act restrictions that would protect the federal employees and the public trust.

Under the Hatch Act (as per the amendments), most federal, state, and local government employees are prohibited from using their authority to influence, either positively or negatively, the election process; fundraising for or receiving political contributions; pursuing public office candidacy in partisan elections; and engaging in partisan campaigning or management activities.

Employees found guilty of these or other Hatch Act violations can be either suspended (30-day minimum) or removed from office depending on the severity of the violation. The OSC has been diligent in upholding the law and does not take infractions of the Hatch Act lightly. On 16 December 2000 Michael M. Hash, acting administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, resigned as part of a settlement with the OSC after he hosted a political fundraiser at his home in violation of the federal law (albeit unknowingly at the time). On 12 July 2002 the OSC sought disciplinary action against Alan White, director of investigative operations at the Pentagon's Defense Investigative Services, for three Hatch Act violations during his Republican candidacy for the Fairfax County, Virginia, school board.

Conclusion

The Hatch Act continues to protect federal employees and the public trust from partisan manipulation and intimidation. Throughout its history, the law has been maintained and enforced with little change to its original precepts.

Key Players

Clinton, William J. (1946-): Clinton is the U.S. president (1993-2001) who signed the Hatch Act Reform Amendments, or P.L. 103-94, on 6 October 1993. The amendments allow certain federal employees to participate in political management or campaigns.

Glenn, John H. (1921-): Glenn is the Democratic senator from Ohio who sponsored the Hatch Act Amendments of 1993 to loosen the law with regard to federal employees.

Hatch, Carl A. (1889-1963): Hatch was the Democratic senator from New Mexico who introduced the "Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activity" to protect civil servants from partisan pressures. The act would later become the 1939 Hatch Act.

Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826): Jefferson was the U.S. president (1801-1809) who issued an executive order in 1801 to stop the partisan activities of government employees. This executive order later became the foundation of the Hatch Act in 1939.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. (1882-1945): Roosevelt was the U.S. president (1933-1945) who signed the Hatch Act into statute after Congress passed it in 1939.

Bibliography

Books

Office of Personnel Management. The United States Civil Service Commission, Biography of an Ideal: A History of the Federal Civil Service. Washington, DC: The Office of Personnel Management, 1977.

Schrecker, Ellen. The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: St. Martin's Press, 1994.

Periodicals

Ballard, Tanya N. "Caught in the Hatch [Legal Briefs]."Government Executive Magazine (12 July 2002).

Moffit, Robert E. "Gutting the Hatch Act: Congress's Plan to Re-politicize the Civil Service." The Heritage Foundation Issues Bulletin 180 (6 July 1993).

——. "Personnel Is Policy: Why the New President Must Take Control of the Executive Branch." The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 1403 (8 January 2001).

Other

Schwemle, Barbara L. Hatch Act Amendments: Political Activity and the Civil Service. Doc. #87153. 1996 [accessed 12 December 2002]. <http://fas.org/irp/crs/87-153.htm>.

United States Office of Special Council. Political Activity (Hatch Act). 2002 [accessed 12 December 2002]. <http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm>.

U.S. Public Law 103-94, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., 6 October 1993. Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993.

U.S. Public Law 252, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 2 August 1939. Hatch Political Activities Act.

Additional Resources

Books

Bolton, John R. The Hatch Act: A Civil Libertarian Defense.Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1976.

Periodicals

Vaughn, Robert G. "Restrictions on the Political Activities of Public Employees: The Hatch Act and Beyond." George Washington Law Review 44 (1976): 516-553.

—Lee Ann Paradise

Hatch Act (1939)

William V. Luneburg

The Hatch Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1147) restricted the ability of federal, or civil service, employees to participate in partisan political life. The goal of the act was to ensure that the civil service would remain politically neutral and efficient. However, many believed that the restrictions infringed on the constitutional rights of federal employees. In 1993 Congress adopted amendments to the act: "It is the policy of Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation." Those amendments are the latest in a series of attempts to respect the constitutional rights of government employees, in particular the rights to speak, organize, and act peacefully to carry out their personal political views, while at the same time ensuring that the public administration of government is carried out in a neutral and efficient manner.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

As early as the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the political activities of federal employees were restricted in the name of effective government. By executive order, the officers of government could not attempt "to influence the votes of others [or] take any part in the business of electioneering." Later administrations adopted similar restrictions in an effort to foster political neutrality. The Civil Service Act of 1883 (known as the Pendleton Act) limited the influence of party politics in the appointment of federal employees. That act was designed to ensure that the civil service was not used for political purposes.

In the years following the Pendleton Act, many continued to see political activity by federal employees as a problem. In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt required that civil service rules be adopted to prevent anyone in the civil service from using his or her official authority or influence to interfere with an election. Such rules also forbid employees appointed to their positions on the basis of examinations (such employees were called the "classified" service) from taking part "in political management or in political campaigns." Employees could, however, express "privately" their own political opinions.

In thousands of cases decided over the next thirty years, the Civil Service Commission (established by the Pendleton Act) developed a body of law that attempted to distinguish between, on the one hand, prohibited political activity by federal employees and, on the other, the permissible expression of political opinions.

The experience over this same period, including the 1938 election, when it was alleged that President Franklin Roosevelt exploited certain government workers for political purposes, persuaded Congress in 1939 to adopt the 1907 civil service rule as the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act (named after Senator Carl A. Hatch of New Mexico) extended the rule to apply to the entire civil service other than high policy-making officials. Removal from office was the designated penalty for violation. In 1940 the act's restrictions were extended to state and local employees whose jobs were funded by federal money (54 Stat. 767). The Civil Service Commission was designated to enforce the Hatch Act restrictions. In 1950 and 1962, the penalty for violations was reduced from removal from office to a thirty-day suspension without pay.

COURT CHALLENGE

In two cases, United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell (1947) and United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973), the Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to the Hatch Act. The Court found that Congress could reasonably believe that the restrictions were necessary to ensure neutral and effective public administration. In doing so, it noted that executive branch employees "should administer the law in accordance with the will of Congress, rather than in accordance with their own or the will of a political party."

The Court also noted that the immediate reason for the enactment of the Hatch Act was the fear that a large federal workforce unrestrained in its political activity could become "a powerful, invincible, and perhaps corrupt political machine." (In fact such a prospect struck fear into Republicans during the Roosevelt administration.) Finally, the Court emphasized the concern that, without the Hatch Act restrictions, advancement in government service might occur less because of excellence on the job and more because of the political views of employees. Critics faulted the Court for its apparent failure to put enough weight on the First Amendment right to political speech, a right that is afforded the highest of protections outside the context of government employment.

1993 AMENDMENTS

In 1974 Hatch Act restrictions on state and local government were watered down, and in 1993 the advocates for removing or reducing restrictions on the political activities of federal employees carried the day. The Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 (107 Stat. 1001) removed the prohibition on participation in "political management or political campaigns." Federal employees are still forbidden, however, 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. The Merit Systems Protection Board and its Office of Special Counsel are responsible for enforcement of the Hatch Act.

See also: Civil Service Acts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eccles, James R. The Hatch Act and the American Bureaucracy. New York: Vantage Press, 1981.

Emerson, Thomas I. The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Vintage Books, 1971.

Rosenbloom, David H. Federal Service and the Constitution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971.

INTERNET RESOURCE

U.S. Office of Special Counsel. "Political Activity (Hatch Act)." <http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm>.

HATCH ACT

Enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.A. 7324) curbs the political activities of employees in federal, state, and local governments. The law's goal is to enforce political neutrality among civil servants: the act prohibits them from holding public office, influencing elections, participating in or managing political campaigns, and exerting undue influence on government hiring. Penalties for violations range from warnings to dismissal. The law's restrictions have always been controversial. Critics have long argued that the act violates the first amendment freedoms of government employees. The U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed, twice upholding the law's constitutionality. Congress has amended the Hatch Act several times since 1939. In 1993, a number of amendments to the act sought to limit the effects of political patronage in federal hiring.

The Hatch Act grew out of nineteenth-century concerns about the political activities of federal employees. As early as 1801, President thomas jefferson issued an executive order that said federal workers should neither "influence the votes of others, nor take part in the business of electioneering." He saw such activities as "inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution." Jefferson was primarily concerned with what government employees did while in office; subsequently, concerns developed in another area. Throughout the nineteenth century, appointments to the federal bureaucracy were viewed as the natural spoils of political success. The prevalent awarding of jobs for political loyalty created a so-called spoils system and, ultimately, a reaction against it.

The long process of neutralizing politics in federal employment continued into the twentieth century. Attempts began with the Pendleton Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403), a comprehensive anti-patronage law named after its sponsor, Senator george h. pendleton, who argued that "the spoils system needs to be killed or it will kill the republic" (14 Cong. Rec. 206 [1882]). The law sought to eliminate patronage by insulating federal employees from coercion. It provided that they could not be fired for refusing to work on behalf of a candidate or for choosing not to make campaign contributions. In 1907, President theodore roosevelt instituted even broader controls through Executive Order 642. Its two major prohibitions addressed employees in the executive civil service and the larger class of federal civil servants. The former were forbidden to use their authority to interfere in elections, and the latter were barred from taking part in political management or campaigning. This order marked the first time that federal employees had limits placed on their First Amendment right to engage in political speech.

The passage of the Hatch Act in 1939 combined the prohibitions of earlier executive orders and the Pendleton Act. The act includes restrictions on political activity for the whole federal bureaucracy. The act stated,"[N]o officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal government, or in any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns" (ch. 410, § 9(a)). The measure received bipartisan support in a response to concern about the new deal—President franklin d. roosevelt's economic program for relieving the effects of the Great Depression—which significantly increased the ranks of federal employees. Congress wanted to rein in Roosevelt's power, especially following allegations that he had used Works Progress Administration employees to influence the 1938 congressional elections. Opponents of patronage in general and enemies of Roosevelt in particular thought the New Deal represented an opportunity for the president to meddle with elections while perpetuating his hold on the White House.

Congress increased the scope of the Hatch Act in 1940 by extending its restrictions to employees of state and local governments that receive federal funds (Act of July 19, 1940, ch. 640, 54 Stat. 767), although it cut back certain applications of this measure in 1974. At various times it has also increased or decreased the penalties for Hatch Act violations—notably, by including suspension without pay as a lesser penalty. In 1993, Congress made yet more changes aimed at curtailing patronage in jobs: amendments to 5 U.S.C.A. § 3303 restricted elected officials from making unsolicited recommendations for job applicants seeking federal employment. States, meanwhile, have broadly incorporated the principles of the Hatch Act in their own statutes, which have also undergone revision over time.

Debate over the Hatch Act has been vigorous since its inception. Critics have portrayed it as an unfair restriction on the First Amendment rights of government employees, especially violative of their fundamental right to engage in political

speech. This argument formed the basis of an early suit that the U.S. Supreme Court heard in 1947, United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S. Ct. 556, 91 L. Ed. 754. In sustaining the legality of the Hatch Act, the Court balanced individual speech rights against the "elemental need for order," and found the latter more important. The Court rejected another challenge to the law in 1973 in United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S. Ct. 2880, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796. Opponents continued to attack these rulings throughout the 1990s. "Unfortunately for those individuals who have chosen a career in the federal public service," argued author Michael Bridges in a 1993 law review article, "the Court has found that Congress may place an asterisk beside their First Amendment rights."

further readings

Bridges, Michael. 1993. "Release the Gags: The Hatch Act and Current Legislative Reform." Capital University Law Review (winter).

Feinstein, Andrew A., and Douglas K. Nelson. 1988. "Hatch Act Reform." Federal Bar News and Journal (July/August).

Gely, Rafael, and Timothy D. Chandler. 2000. "Restricting Public Employees' Political Activities: Good Government or Partisan Politics?" Houston Law Review 37 (fall).

Polley, James D. 1994. "Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993." Prosecutor (September/October).

Segal, Lydia. 1998. "Can We Fight the New Tammany Hall?: Difficulties of Prosecuting Political Patronage and Suggestions for Reform. Rutgers Law Review 50 (winter).

HATCH ACT

HATCH ACT (1939), as amended, regulates partisan political activities by U.S. civil servants. The Democratic senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, protesting the political involvement of federal employees in primaries and general elections, sponsored the bill that became the Hatch Act in order to ban federal employees from participating actively in political campaigns or from using their positions to coerce voters.

The Pendleton Act of 1883 and several executive orders limited partisan political activity by career civil servants. But the number of federal government workers ballooned from 14,000 in 1883 to 560,000 in 1926, so that by the 1930s, conservative Democrats and Republicans feared that these restrictions were insufficient, and that civil servants might shape elections of presidents, senators, and representatives. Also, they believed that the administration of Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt was using relief monies to influence elections. New Deal liberals seeking renomination or attempting to unseat conservative Democrats in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania were accused of diverting Works Progress Administration funds to enhance their prospects at the polls. In January 1939, the Senate Campaign Expenditures Committee upheld those accusations.

Hatch complained that the Democratic National Committee was obtaining gifts from persons working for—and corporations having contracts with—the federal government, and that several relatives of rival New Mexico Democratic senator Dennis Chavez had coerced WPA officials. In January 1939, Hatch introduced legislation to neutralize the federal civil service. While permitting federal employees to vote, his measure prohibited the assessment or solicitation of funds from WPA employees or the removal of any personnel because of refusal to change political affiliation. Section 9 prevented federal officials and workers from using their position to interfere in presidential or congressional elections. Non-policymaking federal officials could not be removed for partisan reasons. Enforcement was left to department heads, with a one-thousand-dollar fine or one-year term of imprisonment for violators.

In April 1939 the Senate adopted his measure with little fanfare, but the House Judiciary Committee infuriated Hatch by deleting section 9. The full House, however, restored much of it in July. President Roosevelt, who privately harbored reservations about section 9, reluctantly signed the bill into law on 2 August. The Hatch Act magnified the influence of local bosses, rural legislators, and labor unions. The original measure, therefore, was broadened in 1940 to include 250,000 state employees paid wholly or partially from federal funds and to require the nonpayment and removal of violators. A 1950 amendment reduced the penalty to ninety days suspension without pay.

Hatch Act supporters considered a politically neutral civil service the best way to achieve an impartial government and protect federal workers from coercion or threats by superiors. They regarded a government employee's attempts to influence the votes of others as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and wanted to limit the growing influence of government employee unions.

In United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court by a 4–3 vote upheld the constitutionality of the Hatch Act, stating that public employment was a privilege subject to reasonable conditions. The Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel in 1966 recommended relaxing restrictions and penalties. A 1972 U.S. district court ruled that the Hatch Act was vague, overly broad, and contrary to the First Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1973 again upheld it.

Critics claimed that the Hatch Act denied millions of federal employees the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association and discouraged political participation among people who otherwise would be vigorous political activists. Democratic President Bill Clinton encouraged Congress to overhaul the Hatch Act, and. the Federal Employees Political Activities Act of 1993 permitted most federal civil servants to run for public office in nonpartisan elections, contribute money to political organizations, and campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections. Federal officials, however, were still barred from engaging in political activity while on duty, soliciting contributions from the general public, or running as candidates for office in partisan elections.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eccles, James R. The Hatch Act and the American Bureaucracy. New York: Vantage Press, 1981.

Ponessa, Jeanne. "The Hatch Act Rewrite." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (13 November 1993), 3146–3147.

Porter, David L. "Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of 1939." New Mexico Historical Review 47 (April 1973): 151–164.

———. Congress and the Waning of the New Deal. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1980.

David L.Porter

See alsoCampaign Financing and Resources ; Civil Service .