VE day. End of the nazi regime. They went underground after that but still exist unfortunately.
I think there are two main groups of shills. One group, intel organizations, the other group, just regular people who have taken too much kool aide and are just lemmings following other lemmings off the cliff.
United States antitrust law
In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Federal Reserve Act
The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the 63rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913. The law created the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 1913 - Lobbying with appropriated moneys
No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 792; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 107–273, div. A, title II, § 205(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1778.)
Lobbying and Publicity or Propaganda Guidelines
Distributed by HHS Office of the General Counsel, Ethics Division, 7/2/10
The Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1913
The Anti-Lobbying Act prohibits the direct or indirect use of appropriated funds to pay for "any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law ratification, policy or appropriation."
Direct executive branch communications to a federal, state, or local legislative body through proper official channels are permitted.
Federal officers or employees also may make any communication otherwise prohibited by section 1913 if such prohibition would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution.
To avoid constitutional concerns, the Attorney General has opined that the Act, despite the breadth of the statutory language, only proscribes large-scale, high-expenditure "grass roots" lobbying effortstargeted at the general public or special interest groups that specifically urge citizens or seek to mobilize members of the group to contact their elected representatives in support of Administration positions on legislative matters.
According to the Department of Justice, the Act does not apply to the constitutionally protected executive branch communications with the public that are personally undertaken by Senate confirmed Presidential appointees in public speeches, appearances, or writings that support or oppose proposed or pending legislation.
Public or private statements by federal officers or employees to members of the public regarding Administration policies on legislative matters do not violate the Act as long as such communications are not part of a "substantial" grass roots lobbying effort, which has been interpreted, based on the Act's legislative history, to mean campaigns involving an expenditure of appropriated funds in excess of $50,000 in 1989 dollars. The Act seeks to proscribe artificially generated constituent pressure on elected representatives solicited at considerably taxpayer expense.
Violations of the Anti-Lobbying Act, although a criminal statute, are punishable by civil penalties ranging between $10,000 and $100,000 per expenditure.
https://ethics.od.nih.gov/Lobby-Publicity-Guide
Hatch Act
The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law that prohibits civil-service employees in the executive branch of the federal government,[2] except the president and vice president,[3] from engaging in some forms of political activity. It became law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico.[4] It was most recently amended in 2012.
Widespread allegations that local Democratic Party politicians used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the congressional elections of 1938 provided the immediate impetus for the passage of the Hatch Act. Criticism centered on swing states such as Kentucky,[5] Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Pennsylvania, Republicans and dissident Democrats publicized evidence that Democratic politicians were consulted on the appointment of WPA administrators and case workers and that they used WPA jobs to gain unfair political advantage.[6] In 1938, a series of newspaper articles exposed WPA patronage, and political contributions in return for employment, prompting an investigation by the Senate Campaign Expenditures Committee, headed by Sen. Morris Sheppard, a Texas Democrat.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act
Changes to Both Hatch Act and Anti-Lobbying Act You Should Be Aware Of
Both the Hatch Act, initially signed into law in 1939, and the Anti-Lobbying Act, initially signed into law in 1919, seek to place limits on federal government personnel regarding partisan political activities and lobbying Congress. Recent changes in both laws make it more likely that federal personnel may be found in violation of the statutes, and be subject to penalties.
Partisan Political Activities
The vast majority of executive branch personnel are aware that the Hatch Act places limits on partisan political activities by civilian employees in the workplace. (Members of the military services are subject to similar restrictions under DOD Directive No. 1344.10.) The “Hatch Act Amendments of 1993” removed the majority of restrictions related to voluntary, “free-time” or “off-duty” activities on behalf of partisan candidates or political parties, while not engaged in their federal jobs and away from federal premises.
However, executive branch personnel, other than the president and vice-president, are still prohibited from running for elective office in most partisan elections, from soliciting or accepting political campaign contributions, and from participating in partisan campaign activity on official duty time, or on federal property. Federal personnel in several departments and agencies, mostly those in the area of law enforcement of national security, are subject to far more restrictive provisions that prohibit participation in partisan political activities even when they are on free time.
It’s less well known that the Hatch Act also covers state and local government employees whose activities are in whole or even in part funded by federally appropriated monies, and prevents them from running for office in a partisan election, among other restrictions. In March, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress in both chambers introduced the “Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012,” which would remove these restrictions on state and local government employees, but preserves them for federal personnel.
The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the Hatch Act, supports (and actually wrote) the bill, as it removes OSC jurisdiction from state and local government personnel, freeing up resources to investigate alleged violations by federal personnel. The bill would also modify the penalties for violations of the act by federal personnel, allowing for fines, suspensions and reprimands, in addition to termination, which is the only current option. These changes would therefore make it easier for OSC to pursue alleged Hatch Act violations, and levy penalties.
Lobbying Restrictions
The principal statutory restriction that limits the activities of federal personnel in their relations with Congress is Title 18 Sec 1913 of the United States Code, originally passed in 1919, and commonly known as the Anti-Lobbying Act. The Act places certain restrictions and limitations on career federal officials lobbying Congress, especially with respect to engaging in certain types of grass roots activities aimed at influencing pending legislation.
Title 18 Sec 1913 was originally codified as a criminal statute and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The Anti-Lobbying Act underwent major revisions in 2002 that broadened but also clarified the restrictions on lobbying activities by federal personnel. In addition, the 2002 amendments removed the criminal penalties and substituted civil penalties, with fines that range from $10,000 to $100,000 dollars for each individual violation of the law which, like the proposed changes in the Hatch Act, make it more likely that federal personnel may be punished for violations of the Anti-Lobbying Act.
In addition to Title 18 Sec 1913, there are additional areas of restrictions on lobbying Congress by federal personnel, as well as non-federal personnel who work for organizations that receive federal funds. First, Congress almost always includes riders to the annual appropriations bills that prohibit career federal personnel from engaging in certain types of lobbying activities, and which generally apply as well to non-federal entities that receive federal appropriated funds.
Second, Title 31 Sec 1352 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment to the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR), places lobbying restrictions on organizations that receive federal grants and federal contractors. These prohibit the use of federal funds for lobbying purposes, but generally allow those organizations to lobby provided they use non-federal funds.
Third, OMB Circular A-122 prohibits non-profit organizations from using federal funds for certain types of lobbying activities.
>>21832829 (cont.)
Finally, individual departments and agencies all maintain their own rules and restrictions on lobbying activities, as well as guidance on what is permitted. These restrictions may well be narrower and stricter than any of the existing statutes and regulations, and it’s incumbent upon individual personnel to learn and follow their own agency rules and guidelines. To make matters even more complicated, jurisdiction over alleged violations of both the Hatch Act and the Anti-Lobbying Act are frequently confusing and overlapping, and may involve the Office of Special Counsel, the Justice Department, OMB, or the Inspector General and/or ethics office of the department or agency.
The bottom line
Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of all federal personnel to be acquainted with the laws, rules and regulations that govern both their partisan political and lobbying activities. Restrictions in these areas are very narrow and specific, and shouldn’t cause you to avoid political activity, or communicating with Congress. If there’s ever a question regarding a specific activity, contact your ethics office, in the case of the Hatch Act, or your ethics office, with respect to lobbying activities.
https://gai.georgetown.edu/changes-to-both-hatch-act-and-anti-lobbying-act-you-should-be-aware-of/
Wet farts are the worst. Kek.