in uniform in television advertisements advocating a position on a political issue). In the instant case, Defendants contend that Section 4.13 of the Code serves to maintain order and discipline among its officers and ensures that the Department remains unbiased and impartial to bolster public confidence in the fact that it administers the law in a fair and impartial manner. See Defs.’ Mem. of Law at 2-3. Defendants further highlight the fact that the state has a strong interest in controlling official speech. See id: As noted above, allowing police officers to speak publicly on partisan political matters while appearing to have the official support of the department leads to both internal unrest and public relations problems. See, e.g., Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 564, 93 S.Ct. 2880 (<HOLDING>); Sector Enterprises, Inc. v. DiPaleramo, 779
holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned recognizing that a redistricting plan can be driven at least to some extent by partisan interests recognizing the obviously important government interests sought to be served by the limitations on partisan political activities  contained in the hatch act holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal recognizing that admission is important to the evaluation of witness credibility