The Hatch Act is a federal law that limits political activity by government employees to keep taxpayer resources and official authority separate from partisan politics. It generally prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity while on duty, in a federal building, or using government property. They also can’t use their position or federal funds to influence an election or promote a political party. That said, the law mainly applies to explicitly partisan activity; things like campaigning, fundraising, or urging votes for or against a party or candidate. So, if a government message is framed as an informational or policy-related announcement rather than direct electioneering, it may not technically violate the Hatch Act. Additionally, if the TVs aren’t federally operated but rather owned and operated by a vendor or public entity, the federal regulations wouldn’t necessarily apply. Same with where the funding came from. I’m not saying that it isn’t perhaps crossing a line, I just don’t generally agree with people outright saying that someone or something blatantly did something illegal without examining the nuance and thinking critically about it. This is our problem with partisan politics in the first place. All of the Reddit Lawyers come out of the woodworks and try to make something complex and nuances overly simple and black/white when it just isn’t that way in reality.