> Using a political office to effect political change is against the law.

From your linked article:

>using this language to specify those who are exempt:[10]

> (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.

I'm sure that "the administration" that evv555 was talking about involves either of those people, instead of some random civil servant.

Neither i nor ii above apply to political (elected) officials. They are absolutely covered by the Hatch Act. If an elected official were to direct one of the exempted classes to perform a political act, the act of directing them would be a crime.

>Neither i nor ii above apply to political (elected) officials. They are absolutely covered by the Hatch Act.

From the linked article again:

>Its main provision prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government,

Do "political (elected) officials" count as "civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government"? My memory from civics class is a bit hazy, but I recall that elected officials are in the legislative branch, not the executive branch?

The president and vice president (executive branch) are elected officials.

That’s a weird way of describing the Hatch Act. What is the point of political office if not to effect political change? That’s their whole rationale.

The Hatch Act is primarily about using political office for campaigning for political office, with the president and Vice President notably excepted.

They are not excepted. They must abide by restrictions on the use of government resources during their political activities.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1007/100797.us.us.2.html