The Hatch Act of 1939 Under Hatch Act of 1939, federal employees, employees of the District of Columbia (D.C.) government, and certain state and local government employees faced significant restrictions on their ability to participate in political activities and placing ceilings on campaign expenditures. The act is named for its author, Senator Carl Atwood Hatch (1889-1963) of New Mexico. (There was an earlier Hatch Act (1887), named for Representative William Henry Hatch (1833-96) of Missouri, concerned the study of scientific agriculture.) The Hatch Act of 1939 passed following several big corruption cases involving the burgeoning post-New Deal bureaucracy, and was aimed at the civil service. But by its terms, it applies to almost anyone on the U.S. government payroll. Only the president, vice president, and appointees requiring Senate confirmation (such as Cabinet secretaries) are exempt. The original Hatch Act forbade government employees to raise funds, give partisan public speeches, or volunteer for any candidate or party. Among its provisions, the Hatch Act prohibited such practices as threatening, intimidating, or coercing voters in national elections; made it illegal for administrators in U.S. civil service to interfere with the nomination and election of candidates to federal office; proscribed the practices of promising and withholding certain kinds of employment and unemployment relief as a reward or punishment for political activity; and prohibited the solicitation of political contributions from relief recipients. Enforcement of the Hatch Act was always erratic, and there was no serious attempt to apply its general ban on politicking to the White H... ... middle of paper ... ...nce with the performance of the duties of the Federal employee or create a conflict, or apparent conflict, of interest. The OSC receives and investigates complaints of Hatch Act violations. When warranted, the OSC will prosecute violations before the Merit Systems Protection Board. When violations are not sufficiently egregious to warrant prosecution, the OSC may issue a warning letter to the employee involved. Violations of Hatch Act provisions applicable to federal employees are punishable by removal, or a minimum 30-day suspension without pay. Violations of Hatch Act provisions applicable to covered state and local employees are punishable by removal, or, if the agency refuses to remove the employee, by forfeiture by the affected state or locality of federal assistance equal to two years of the charged employee's salary.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
In the collective bargaining agreement under Article XX Section 1, there is list of the causes for immediate discharge. Out of the fourteen causes that are listed, McNamara has committed five of the causes. McNamara has disobeyed the rules that applied to safety and disobeyed her supervisor when she was reprimanded the first few times. There was a neglect of duty, in the case of sleeping during a safety lesson and reading a magazine while on duty. She refused to comply with plant rules, in that she did not follow the safety rules that require employees to
Scandal inevitably accompanied the new system. Men who had openly bought their posts by campaign contributions were appointed to high office. Often times illiterate incompetents, and plain crooks were given position of public trust.
On January 16, 1883 the U.S. legislation established a law, which gave employment based on merit rather than on political party affiliation that leads to corruption in the government system. Widespread public demand for reform in the government was stirred after the Civil War by accusations of incompetence, corruption, and theft in federal departments. After a guy who was refused an office job that he was capable of assassinated President James A. Garfield in 1881, civil service reform became a leading issue in the elections of 1882. In January 1883, Congress passed a comprehensive civil service bill sponsored by Senator George H. Pendleton, providing for the open selection of government employees and guaranteeing the right of citizens to compete for federal jobs without regard to politics, religion, race, or national origin. The new law covered only about 10 percent of the positions in the federal government, but nearly every president after Chester A. Arthur, who signed the bill into law, broadened its scope. By 1980 more than 90 percent of federal employees were protected by the act.
...y of the treasury furnish two million dollars for military use without the required congressional approval. This precedent allows future presidents to take actions strictly forbidden by the executive branch in times of national emergency without congressional approval.
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
Throughout American History, people of power have isolated specific racial and gender groups and established policies to limit their right to vote. These politicians, in desperate attempt to elongate their political reign, resort to “anything that is within the rules to gain electoral advantage, including expanding or contracting the rate of political participation.”(Hicks) Originally in the United States, voting was reserved for white, property-owning gentleman
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
In 1965 the first Aging American’s Act was passed. This legislation was part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform. In passing this legislation nearly 50 years ago, the government created a new department the focused on the rights and needs of the gaining population called the United States Administration on Aging. The original legislation was complete with seven titles. The articles include Title I—the Declaration of Objectives for Older Americans; Title II—Establishment of Administration on aging; Title III—Grants for state and community programs on aging; Title IV—Activities for health and independence, and longevity; Title V—Community service senior opportunities act; Title VI—Grants for Native Americans; and Title VII—allotments for vulnerable elder rights protection activities. Each of these titles are present in the most recent Aging Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2013. Each of the titles in the original and reauthorization have levels of measure to ensure that the legislation is enacted in a manner that will protect the aging population. The titles provide guidance to involved organizations and caregivers ensuring each is properly educated in treating the medical and mental health needs of the aging population as well as recognizing, reporting, and preventing elderly abuse, neglect, and physical, mental, and financial exploitation.
During Indiana's 2008 General Election." Journal Of Law & Politics 25.3 (2009): 329-373. ContentSelect Research Navigator. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
unfair and wrong for political parties, or their affiliates, to sneakily find ways to keep college students from voting for them. This political manipulation could strike doubt in the government’s ability to hold true to its true purpose, which is to establish a government. for the people and for the people. Candidates are allowed to discuss their policies for OUR government, but turn around and try to keep certain demographics for. implementing their fair say in the election of our political representatives.
and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in
Light, Paul C., and Christine L. Nemacheck. "Chapter 7 Congress." Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition, Books a La Carte New Mypoliscilab With Etext Access Card Package. By David B. Magleby. 2012 Election Edition ed. N.p.: Pearson College Div, 2013. N. pag. Print.
Generally, the types of workplace retaliation that are enforced to protect against the treatment of whistleblowers