18 U.S.C. § 610
Coercion of political activity
It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 138
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2023 · leading case: Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. United States, 407 U.S. 385 (1972).
Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. United States, 407 U.S. 385 (1972). “§ 371 to violate 18 U. S. C. § 610 . At the time of trial § 610 provided in relevant part: "It is unlawful .”
Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). “In holding that no private action could be brought to enforce 18 U. S. C. § 610 (1970 ed. and Supp. III), a criminal statute, the Court referred to four factors said to be relevant to determining generally whether private actions could be implied.”
United States v. Int'l Union United Auto., Aircraft & Agric. Implement Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957). “The issues tendered in this case are the construction and, ultimately, the constitutionality of 18 U. S. C. § 610 , an Act of Congress that prohibits corporations and labor organizations from making "a contribution or expenditure in connection with" any election for federal…”
United States v. Claude C. Wild, Jr., 551 F.2d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 13, 1973, the defendant (then vice-president of Gulf Oil Corporation) pled guilty to an information charging him with a single misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. § 610 . 2 The government, through the Watergate Special Prosecution Force *420 (WSPF),…”
Russell P. Miller & Margaret Jane Miller, His Wife v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (Hereafter At&t), 507 F.2d 759 (3rd Cir. 1974). “§ 202 (a) (1970), and to have amounted to AT&T’s making a “contribution” to' the DNC in violation of a federal prohibition on corporate campaign spending, 18 U.S.C. § 610 (1970). 1 Plaintiffs sought permanent relief in the form of an injunction requiring AT&T to collect the…”
Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Assn., 479 U.S. 388 (1987). “In Cort, corporate shareholders sought recovery of funds that a corporate official had expended in alleged violation of 18 U. S. C. § 610 , the then-current version of the Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits corporate expenditures and contributions for the purpose of…”
Bernard W. McNamara v. Robert Johnston, 522 F.2d 1157 (7th Cir. 1975). “ng the impact of this new law on this appeal, and we have concluded that the Campaign Act Amendments require the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction insofar as it requests that defendants be enjoined from contributing CAP funds to political…”
United States v. Alexander J. Barket, 530 F.2d 189 (8th Cir. 1976). “The June, 1974, indictment charged Barket with consenting “to the contribution and expenditure” of national bank funds to a political organization to pay election expenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 610 (count I), 4 and with misapplying the same funds by means of the same…”
United States v. Jack L. Chestnut, 533 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1976). “Chestnut appeals from a judgment of conviction of causing another to accept and receive an illegal corporate campaign contribution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 610 , 2. 1 After a four day trial before Edward Weinfeld, District Judge, the jury returned a guilty verdict.”
Miller v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 394 F. Supp. 58 (E.D. Pa. 1975). “1974), on the ground that the failure of AT&T to collect the debt conceivably constituted an illegal corporate campaign contribution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 610 and, thus, a claim of breach of the individual defendants’ fiduciary du *61 ty to the corporation was sufficiently…”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986). “The statute as amended forbade any corporation or labor organization to make a "contribution or expenditure in connection with any election . . ." for federal office.”
United States v. W. A. Boyle, 482 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “director of the League for a part of the time in question, testified that he was concerned that contributions by the League might violate 18 U.S.C. § 610 , which makes it “unlawful .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.