radio may please a court in two thousand and seven center larry craig employed to substantial discretion over his committee funds paying legal fees to address an inquiry into his personal conduct by the idaho statesman newspaper his media expenses to address both this inquiry and the subsequent june two thousand and seven arrest in the minneapolis airport were similarly permissible yet his legal expenditures to withdraw his guilty in that matter the cause of the ensuing political crisis were deemed irrespective of his office and candidacy and thus personal use this result cannot be squared with the statute and it is not what congress contemplated when  of the idaho statesman into the exact same type of conduct that was the that was it issue in the police after his arrest and his guilty plea which he filed to try to maintain this is a personal private matter it was then leaked to roll call newspaper it was immediately the subject of two senate ethics complaints including one that was filed by his republican colleagues essentially excommunicating him from the party committee positions that he had as a top ranking republican on a number of committee he lost professional stature he also of course ultimately had to to retire and opted not to run again for the two well that they may your honor and again the statute calls for a case by case analysis and this is a this is an extremely unique situation where there were he was dealing with the issue about his personal conduct before this arrest and came forth permissi line that has to be drawn is what would have a reasonable person expends on a disorderly conduct misdemeanor charge and this carried with it a five hundred seventy five dollars fine and i would i would offer this probably the most expensive use your campaign funds of others i would say almost undoubtedly no your honor but but but if i may and we do have a nother example but not not along the lines of murder but along the lines of personal misconduct  increases your costs for defense then under that irrespective standard yes your honor those who says your cost like you got to get a really good lawyer well that's what you're on your honor if you're charged with a dui and you're going to lose your license and all the other consequences that conduct please nationally resonated so strongly how many were leaked to the newspaper how many were utilized to inflict political damage for someone because of you know the implications of what his personal conduct work and this is this is not a this is not a case where he he blew a dui and it was clear that he had ten drinks or he committed murder this is a case where he pled guilty to causing a long arm because of the way that he moved  feet and his hands and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge carrying a five hundred seventy five dollars fine you know as a result of that he was essentially hounded out of the republican party so what's what's the rule you will have commission that they could distinguish between what a normal person would encounter and what a candidate and the other three didn't do that's correct your honor you have to decide that's well and this is a matter of first impression and this court will draw out one of  you have to case by case as a general matter or a divorce case it's going to be a personal fight to the extent that a divorce case becomes politicized or that someone's opponent uses it then there may be a situation where the person comes from a religious area that friction to returning the money to status quo and in this case series there's absolutely no friction to that it is a simple matter of returning the money to the committee and if the f e c requests to pull out allowing him to use it consistent with their view of the statu morning writers may please the court kevin had offered ellie but our election commission this year court's ruling should be a first for at least two decades the commission has consistently applied a clear and simple test to determine what an office holder may spend campaign funds on his legal expenses the allegations of the legal proceeding must relate to his office holder duties and senator craig's legal proceeding he was prosecuted for disturbing the peace defense which he first admitted in two thousand seventy percent ethics committee had absolutely nothing to do with this statute requires judy's trip cost and expense that can pay for it campaign funds and so even if the senators expenses did not exist irrespective of his motivations his fear of not winning reelection of his guilty often there's there is a line between status and two students must have your right mind i don't think that's the case your honor i think if an office holder did not have to use the press would not care about whether they were arrested for disturbing the peace and it's all but then later on when he encourages media expenses when presumably one would be motivated to respond he no longer was a candidate for office or so he could have been motivated by and he must have had personal motivations in the commission allowed that expense because they look to what caused then you knew you remember right no because he's arguing that his subjective motivations are what caused him to engage certain actions when a commission just looks to the nature of the legal proceeding that causes expenses do they involve officeholder that's the question that's to the extent there is any inconsistency between the commission's approach with media expenses and legal proceedings there's not but six that there were it doesn't help him anyway because the statute is what guides the involves targeting he alleged he was targeted for a legal proceeding because he was a senator he defended in the action that subpoenaed him basically admitted that i'm only going after senator vitter because he is a senator i'm going to drag him into this case part was subject to a legal proceeding because he was an officer and that's all after the arrest yes i think any so the commission has centrally rejected senator craig's main argument twenty years ago and it's interpreted indicate a personal case like drunk driving that does not get transformed into something officeholder related merely because as an impact on the senator's status now if that were the rule it would completely swallow the personal use ban there is no personal offense that would not have a major impact on a sitting officeholders status or chance for reelection there would always be media attention and response that cannot possibly just transform what is ordinarily a personal  something officeholder you related or else there would be no more personal use family comes to legal us the same is true of one's officeholder motivations any expense could be turned into something officeholder related with their motivations buying a home that's a per se personal use congress's task but one could imagine a situation where an office holder could say well i only want to buy this house in washington d c because i need to be near congress so therefore i can use campaign funds but that is not the test that congress provided for  now that the commission is approaching which this court did is perfectly consistent with the case by case approach required by the regulation case by case approach means we don't know just from looking at the fact that something is a legal proceeding whether it's officeholder duty related or not and then the commission test is to look at the allegations what's the legal proceeding about just because the senator disagrees with the commission's test and what the district court did in that case by case pro choice doesn't mean that issue court wasn't actually applying a case by case procedures just applying case by case pro ch his other pocket he's the treasure the great committee would seem to have no purpose and no campaign to run so the district court was correct to say this is maybe not the best situation for this money i have the discretion to send it to the treasury and that's what i'm going to do treasury any injury to the donor's rights to the crowd committee was caused by senator craig's offense the discourse certainly has at fault for that simply because it was a remedy that perfectly entitled to order also the first member rights of cra i didn't find reference to chevron or you are the exact level difference your honor but the commission's reasonable interpretation of the statute is entitled to deference and the reason why it hasn't come up is because senator craig doesn't challenge the regulation the regulation is very clear about how it applies by the f e c think there are literally dozens of campaign committees that are still extant by former members and in fact the kerry advisory opinion is it is an exact example of the utilization circumstances and as we've discussed it's a much broader standard than that even if this court were to find that the money were spent improperly that doesn't that doesn't establish standard prey as it as a intentional lawbreaker improperly under those circumstances because your honor that district court misperceived the function of a campaign committee but there are numerous ways you can utilize that money it's not to fund it would not be an empty gesture ok mike let me ask you booties so these are examples off so any reason why these examples shouldn't inform you generally as to what you meant by the more general statement the respective of the candidates the the person says look i can't i don't have enough money to spend on cool clothes and i've got a really cool constituency and they want me to wear you know the latest you know i've got a why themselves and they're all young in the from brooklyn hundred yards on friday that would then be remembered more for you here on earth i may be wrong on this but i don't think you actually have to live in the district to be to represent