Payment of Expenses Associated with TYavel

by the President and Vice President

B inds appropriated for the official functioning of the offices of the President and the Vice President 

may be used for travel expenses only if the travel is reasonably related to an official purpose; and, 

official activities m ay be funded only from funds appropriated for such purposes. Thus appropriated funds should not be used to pay fo r political travel and political funds should not be used to pay 

for official travel.

W hether an event is official or political for purposes o f paying its expenses must be determined on a 

case-by-case basis, and both the nature of the event and the nature of the individual involved should 

be considered.

W here both official and political activities occur on the same trip, the expenses of individuals on the 

trip fo r both political and official reasons can be apportioned between the government and a 

political com m ittee on a basis which reflects the tim e spent on the respective activities. During the 

period of a presidential election cam paign. Federal Election Commission regulations may require 

a different rule of allocation.

March 24, 1982

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

This memorandum responds to your request for our advice about the payment 

of expenses associated with travel by the President or Vice President. We are to 

assume that travel by the President or Vice President may often include both 

official events, undertaken as part of the President’s or Vice President’s official 

roles as governmental leaders, and purely political events, undertaken for partisan purposes in order to advance the interests of the President’s and Vice 

President’s political party. This mixed character of much presidential and vice 

presidential travel follows naturally from their dual roles as governmental officials and leaders of their party. You have asked us to articulate the legal 

principles governing the allocation and payment of costs associated with such 

travel.

Several caveats must be noted at the outset. First, our opinion should not be 

read as a declaration that the generally applicable principles will necessarily lead 

to an inflexible result in a particular case. In fact, the principles are of such 

generality that they often will generate few determinate results. They thus must 

be viewed as general guides to decisionmaking. Second, the principles should be 

applied to a particular trip by the officials most familiar with the facts of the trip. 

Each case may present unique circumstances that will need to be taken into

214
account in determining, for instance, whether an event is “official” or “ political” in character. As we will indicate, there is considerable room in this context 

for the careful use of informed discretion. Third, this opinion focuses on broadly 

applicable legal principles, not on the specific rules adopted by the Federal 

Election Commission forelection activity. See 11 C.F.R. Chapter 1 (1981). If, in 

light of this opinion, particular questions arise, we will, of course, be glad to 

address them.

Furthermore, the principles discussed in this opinion may be fully understood 

only with an appreciation of the unique context presented by the peculiar 

functions and responsibilities of the President and Vice President in our system of 

government. They are the senior officials of the Executive Branch of government. 

Their official roles are necessarily political in the broad sense that they must 

formulate, explain, advocate, and defend policies. To the extent that the President 

and Vice President generate support for their policies and programs, they are also 

executing and fulfilling their official responsibilities. Even the most clearly 

partisan activity is not without some impact on the official activities of the 

President and Vice President.

By the same token, official success or failure by the President and Vice 

President has an inevitable and unavoidable impact on the standing of their 

political party, members of their party, and their party’s candidates for public 

office. Thus, it is simply not possible to divide many of the actions of the 

President and Vice President into utterly official or purely political categories. To 

attempt to do so in most cases would ignore the nature of our political system and 

the structure of our government. Accordingly, efforts to establish such divisions 

must be approached with common sense and a good faith effort to apply the spirit 

of the principles we discuss in this memorandum, and they must be judged with 

considerable deference to the decisions of the persons directly involved in 

making the determinations.

With this background, our discussion will focus on three major questions. 

First, what are the basic legal principles to be applied, putting aside specialized 

restrictions formulated by the Federal Election Commission with regard to 

election activities? Second, how does one determine whether an event giving rise 

to an expense is “official” or “ non-official” in character? Third, assuming that a 

trip involves events that are both official and non-official (or political) in 

character, may certain of the expenses for such a mixed trip be apportioned 

between the government, on the one hand, and a political committee, on the other 

hand? In the fourth section, we will discuss other considerations that bear on the 

issues discussed herein.

I. TVo Basic Norms

When considering payment of expenses associated with presidential and vice 

presidential travel, two major principles governing the use of appropriated funds 

must be bome in mind. First, appropriated funds may be spent only for the 

purposes for which they have been appropriated. 31 U.S.C. § 628; 52 Comp.

215
Gen. 504 (1973); 50 Comp. Gen. 534 (1971). Thus, funds appropriated for the 

official functioning of the offices of the President and the Vice President may be 

used for travel expenses only if the travel is reasonably related to an official 

purpose. If, however, there is no reasonable connection between the expense 

incurred and the official purposes to be served by an appropriation— as, generally 

speaking, there would not be when an expense is incurred purely for partisan 

political purposes— official funds may not be used to pay the expense.

The second basic principle is that, in general, official activities should be paid 

for only from funds appropriated for such purposes, unless Congress has authorized the support of such activities by other means. Stated another way, although 

appropriated funds should not be used for non-official purposes, it is equally true 

that outside sources of funds may not be used to pay for official activities. This 

latter principle, which prevents the unauthorized augmentation of appropriations, 

has been recognized by the Comptroller General on numerous occasions.1 A 

problem concerning an unauthorized augmentation of an appropriation does not 

arise when a trip is purely non-official in character and non-official funds are used 

to pay for it. Rather, the issue arises only where an official activity is supported by 

non-appropriated funds and where there is no authority for that to occur.

In short, appropriated funds should not be used to pay for political events, and 

absent authority to the contrary, political funds should not be used to pay for 

official events. The difficulties of applying these principles arise because both 

types of activities may occur on the same trip and because it is exceedingly 

difficult in many instances to determine what is official and what is political.

II. What Tests Should Be Used for Determining Whether an Expense

Should Be Considered “Political” or “Official?”

Because officials will wish to ensure that appropriated funds are used only to 

pay for expenses associated with official events and are not used to pay for 

political expenses, it will be necessary to determine on a case-by-case basis 

whether an expense is official or political in character. As discussed generally 

above, there is unfortunately no single litmus test for making such judgments. 

Indeed, many events could be characterized properly as either political or official 

or both. Therefore, in making this determination the persons most familiar with 

the facts of a particular trip will have to assess all of the circumstances involved 

and apply a large measure of common sense. There are, however, two major 

variables concerning the source of the expense to be borne in mind: the nature of 

the event involved, and the nature of the individual involved. Either, or both, of 

these indicia may be useful in a particular case in determining whether a 

particular expense should be considered official or political.

With respect to the nature of the event giving rise to an expense, an earlier 

opinion of this Office, entitled “ Political Trips” and transmitted to the Counsel to 

the President on March 15, 1977, stated the following guidelines:

' S e e.e /> .2 3 Com p. G en 694(1944), 46 Comp. G en. 68 9 (1 9 6 7 ) Scralso 9 Com p Dec. 174 (1902), 17Comp. 

Dec. 712 (1911)

216
As a general rule, Presidential and Vice Presidential travel should 

be considered ‘political’ if its primary purpose involves their 

positions as leaders of their political party. Appearing at party 

functions, fundraising, and campaigning for specific candidates 

are the principal examples of travel which should be considered 

political. On the other hand, travel for inspections, meetings, 

non-partisan addresses, and the like ordinarily should not be 

considered ‘political’ travel even though they [sic] may have 

partisan consequences or concern questions on which opinion is 

politically divided. The President cannot perform his official 

duties effectively without the understanding, confidence, and 

support of the public. Travel and appearances by the President and 

Vice President to present, explain, and secure public support for 

the Administration’s measures are therefore an inherent part of the 

President’s and Vice President’s official duties (pages 11-12).

We concur with the foregoing rules of thumb, which are based largely on a 

common sense understanding of the nature of political and official activities.2

While we would hope that the foregoing generalities may be useful guides for 

the future, they should not be viewed as inflexible. There clearly is much room 

for discretion in determining whether an event giving rise to an expense is 

political or official. At bottom, the question is a factual one that can only be 

answered by those most familiar with the particular facts of a given situation. 

Nonetheless, in general, if the purpose of an event on a trip is to promote the 

partisan aims of the President’s or Vice President’s party or candidates of that 

party, then expenses incurred in performing the event would generally be 

political in character. Should particular questions arise about specific events, we 

would be glad to provide more concrete advice concerning them.

The second variable that may, in some circumstances, determine the character 

of a particular expense incurred on a trip is the nature of the individual whose 

activity generates the expense. There are some individuals who, in particular 

situations, are on a trip for inherently official or political purposes. Expenses 

incurred by them should generally be viewed as either official or political 

depending on their particular role. For instance, there are some persons whose 

official duties require them to be with the President, whether or not the President 

himself is on official business.3 This group includes the President’s doctor, his 

military aide, and the Secret Service agents responsible for his protection.4 A 

similar group would exist for the Vice President. Expenses incurred during travel 

with the President or Vice President by this group of individuals should be

2 Although we generally agree w ith this earlier opinion of this Office, we w ould note that much o f its advice is of a 

prudential, n o tstn ctly legal, character In the present m em orandum , we do not undertake to specify rules that are not 

legally m andated. M oreover, the earlier opinion itself takes pains to stress the flexibility that exists in determ ining 

whether, in a particular case, travel by the President is official or political (see page 7).

3 This point is the sam e as stated in the M arch 15, 1977, opinion of this O ffice, entitled “ Political Trips” (pages 9, 

15-16).

4 This list is not intended to be exhaustive The President may, in his discretion, determ ine that others are 

necessary m em bers o f his official party w henever he travels.

217
considered official regardless of the character of the event that may be involved in 

a given trip.

Similarly, on an otherwise entirely official trip, an individual may accompany 

the group for purely political reasons. As a rule, any expenses specifically 

incurred by such individuals should be considered political expenses, regardless 

of the events involved in the trip.

In short, as we noted at the outset of this section, there is no single test for 

determining whether an expense is political or official in character. Viewed 

generally, expenses of individuals whose official duties require them to travel 

with the President or Vice President should normally be considered official. 

Expenses of individuals who are on a trip for purely political reasons should 

normally be considered political. Expenses associated with individuals who are 

not necessarily serving in either a wholly official or wholly political capacity— 

such as the President or Vice President or other individuals in the White House 

who may, consistent with their official duties, perform political functions— 

should normally be judged to be official or political depending on the character of 

the event giving rise to the expense.

III. On a Mixed TYip Including Both Official and Political Activities,

Can Certain Expenses Be Apportioned Between the Government and a

Political Committee?

Based on what we have said thus far, the following conclusions may be stated. 

First, if all events during a trip are political in character, the only official expenses 

on the trip would be those associated specifically with the group of individuals 

whose official duties require them to accompany the President and Vice President. Second, if all events on a trip are official in character, the only political 

expenses would be those associated specifically with individuals who accompany 

the President and Vice President on the trip for purely political reasons. This 

means that on a trip that is entirely official, any expenses associated with the 

President or Vice President or others who are not necessarily on the trip for purely 

official or purely political reasons should be considered official. Conversely, on a 

trip that is entirely political, expenses associated with persons who are not 

necessarily on the trip for wholly official or wholly political reasons should be 

considered political.

A question remains, however, concerning expenses associated with individuals whose purpose for being on a trip is not necessarily only political or only 

official, when the trip itself is for both official and political purposes. Specifically, on a mixed trip involving a substantial official element and a substantial 

political element, can the expenses associated with the President or Vice President or others who are on the trip for both reasons be apportioned between the 

government and a political committee? There are several possible views on this 

question.

It might be argued, for example, that the performance of an official event 

during a trip could not have been accomplished without incurring certain expend218
itures and that, therefore, the entire cost of the trip should be treated as official 

and should be paid out of appropriated funds, with the sole exception being 

incremental expenses associated specifically with a political activity (e.g., a 

hotel bill for an extra night’s lodging necessitated entirely by a political event on 

the following day). This approach is grounded on the assumption that to permit 

any other apportionment of the cost of a trip to a political committee would allow 

the official budget to benefit from an unauthorized augmentation of appropriations. Since the expenses incurred were necessary to accomplish an official 

purpose, on this view they must be paid for in full with appropriated funds.

The opposite theory could also be advanced. That is, if there is any political 

activity on a trip, a political committee could theoretically be required to pay for 

the trip’s entire cost (except for incremental expenses specifically attributable to 

an official event). This theory proceeds on the assumption that any other approach 

would allow the President’s or Vice President’s political activities to be subsidized by their official appropriations.

A third approach, which in effect combines the first two, is suggested by a 

prior opinion of this Office, transmitted to the Counsel to the President on 

September 17, 1980, and entitled “ Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Incurred 

by Government Officials on Mixed Official and Campaign Trips.” That opinion 

responded to a question about the operation of a Federal Election Commission 

(FEC) rule under which a campaign committee’s share of the costs of a mixed 

official-political trip is the full cost of the trip from the point of origin through 

each campaign-related stop and back to the point of origin. 11 C.F.R. § 9004.F.5 

After the FEC adopted this rule, the White House Counsel’s Office assumed that 

the expense to the government for such a trip would be the difference between the 

trip’s actual cost and the amount reimbursed by the campaign committee. 

However, the Counsel’s Office was concerned that such diminishment of the 

actual expense to the government could constitute an unauthorized augmentation 

of appropriations. For that reason, it sought an opinion of this Office.

The September 17, 1980, opinion concluded that, if the government were to 

pay only the difference between the actual cost of a trip and the amount 

reimbursed by the campaign committee under the FEC rule, there would be an 

unauthorized augmentation of appropriations (assuming no authority to accept 

contributions) so long as the government were allowed to “ reap the benefit” of 

the enhanced payment of expenses by the campaign committee under the FEC 

rule. To cure this problem, the opinion stated that an accounting system should be 

devised to charge “ the full allocated travel costs to both the Campaign Committee and the government agency,” with a deposit of any excess funds in the 

Treasury (page 4, emphasis added).

While we express no view regarding the correctness of this third approach 

during the period of a presidential election campaign when the Federal Election

5 For instance, if a trip from W ashington, D C , to Chicago were taken for official purposes, and then a trip from 

Chicago to D enver were taken for cam paign purposes (with a return from D enver to W ashington, DC), u n d er the 

FEC rule the cam paign com m ittee would have to m ake reim bursem ent for the cost o f travel from Washington* D .C ., 

to Denver and back to W ashington, D C.

219
Commission’s regulations would be applicable, we do not believe that the 

approach correctly reflects the requirements that apply outside the campaign 

period. We believe that the first two approaches are unreasonable solutions to the 

problem because each tilts the scales completely toward one of the two conflicting 

guiding principles and results either in an inappropriate augmentation of appropriated funds or the subsidization of political activity with appropriated funds. 

The approach of the September 17, 1980, Office of Legal Counsel opinion 

attempts to address these problems in, we believe, an unrealistic and unnecessary 

way by requiring one trip to be paid for twice— both with official funds and with 

political funds.

In our view, a fourth approach which attempts in good faith to apportion the 

costs of such a trip on the basis of a reasonable division between the time spent on 

political activities and the time spent on official activities is a more reasonable 

and a legal resolution of the underlying problems. For example, if 50 percent of a 

single day’s events are political and 50 percent are official, approximately 

50 percent of the costs associated with participants whose roles are not necessarily either official or political should be reimbursed by the political committee 

and 50 percent should be paid from appropriated funds, unless such an apportionment, under the particular circumstances, would on some basis be unreasonable or inequitable. We believe that such an approach faithfully accommodates 

both of the basic norms discussed in part I.

Thus, when there is a mixed trip involving the President or Vice President, the 

purpose of which is both substantially political and substantially official, expenses should be paid in the following manner: first, expenses for individuals 

who are necessarily official (Secret Service, etc.) should be paid for with 

appropriated funds; second, expenses for individuals who are necessarily political (campaign officials) should be reimbursed by a political committee; third, 

incremental expenses specifically attributable to an official event should be paid 

from appropriated funds, and incremental expenses specifically attributable to a 

political event should be paid from political funds; and finally, expenses for 

individuals whose official roles permit them to perform political activity should 

be reasonably and equitably apportioned so that a share reflecting the amount of a 

trip that is political in character should be paid by a political committee. If these 

general guidelines are followed, then the purposes of using appropriated funds 

for official purposes but not using such funds for political purposes will be 

achieved.

We must reaffirm the limited nature of our conclusion about apportionment. 

As we have indicated, some categories of expenses may have to be treated as 

entirely official or entirely political, and thus they would not be subject to 

apportionment. Apportionment would be appropriate only with respect to expenses associated with individuals whose official roles permit them to perform 

political functions, and only when those individuals are on a trip that itself is not 

entirely political or wholly official in nature.6 In such circumstances, to accom6 We are not suggesting any specific formula for apportionm ent, for several form ulae may be equally reasonable

C ontinued

220
modate both of the guiding norms noted in part I, we believe that an apportionment of expenses between appropriated funds and the funds of a political 

committee which reflects the relationship between official and political activities 

may be made. We urge caution in applying such an approach, particularly in 

retaining records to substantiate any characterization of an event or trip as 

political or official that could be used in the future if, for instance, there should be 

an audit by the General Accounting Office.7

IV. Other Considerations

We would add one qualification to the preceding discussion. As noted in part I, 

official expenses, including expenses incurred during the President’s and the Vice 

President’s travel for official purposes, may not be paid for by funds other than 

those appropriated for official purposes unless there is authority to the contrary. 

An acceptable source of such authority would be a congressional authorization, 

in the form of a statute, for the President and the Vice President (or their 

respective offices) to accept gifts to defray their official expenses. This Office has 

concluded in the past that the White House Office and the Office of the Vice 

President do not have statutory authority to accept contributions or gifts. This 

legal premise provides the basis for the conclusion that the payment by a political 

committee of official travel expenses incurred by the President or Vice President 

would be an impermissible augmentation of the appropriations for these offices.

However, in the course of our research for this opinion, we reviewed a 

provision of law, 2 U.S.C. § 439a (1982), not considered in any of the prior 

opinions on this subject by this Office or by the Comptroller General, which 

appears to grant the President and Vice President gift authority, at least to the 

extent of authorizing them to accept contributions to defray their ordinary and 

necessary official expenses. Section 439a states in full:

Amounts received by a candidate as contributions that are in 

excess of any amount necessary to defray his expenditures, and 

any other amounts contributed to an individual for the purpose cf

supporting his or her activities as a holder cf Federal office, may

be used by such candidate or individual, as the case may be, to

and som e may be particularly well suited to particular trips For exam ple, a formula may be predicated on the 

num ber o f hours spent on each event, the number of hours on the entire trip (including travel tim e) devoted to official 

or political affairs, the number of events devoted to each, or if a trip is devoted to one type of event in a distant city 

and another type in a nearby city on the return flight, on the relative distances travelled to each W hile some general 

guidelines w ithin these limits should be established for consistency in application, the overriding factor is the 

reasonableness o f the apportionm ent in a specific situation. We would not exclude the possibility of creating an 

exception fo rd e minim is involvement inofficial activity during a trip that would be treated as entirely political, and 

vice versa. We note that previous Administrations have made use of such a de minim is exception, as indicated in the 

background m aterials supplied to us by your office

7 In tw o opinions to several Senators, dated O ctober 6, 1980, and M arch 6, 1981, the C om ptroller G eneral 

discussed the apportionm ent of travel expenses for purposes of their paym ent by official and political funds under the 

C arter A dministration (B—196862) A pportionm ent was not objected to by the Com ptroller G eneral. T he C om ptroller G eneral expressly noted, as we have observed here, that there are “ no guidelines of a legally binding nature

[which] have been established by legislation, judicial decision, or otherw ise” (page 2 of March 6 , 1981, opinion). 

These opinions, coupled with prior practice by the W hite H ouse, buttress our conclusion that a reasonable 

apportionm ent may be made in the circum stances we have described.

221
defray any ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his or her duties as a holder c f Federal office, may be 

contributed to any organization described in section 170(c) of 

. . . [the Internal Revenue Code of 1954], or may be used for any 

other lawful purpose, including transfers without limitation to any 

national, State, or local committee of any political party; except 

that, with respect to any individual who is not a Senator or 

Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the 

Congress on January 8, 1980, no such amounts may be converted 

by any person to any personal use, other than to defray any 

ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his 

or her duties as a holder of Federal office. (Emphasis added.)

The foregoing provision authorizes “ amounts contributed to an individual for the 

purpose of supporting his or her activities as a holder of Federal office” to be used 

by such individual “ to defray any ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 

connection with his or her duties. . . .” The term “ Federal office” is defined 

separately as including the Offices of the President, the Vice President, and 

Members of Congress. 2 U.S.C. § 431(c). Accordingly, on its face, this provision would appear to authorize use by the President and Vice President of 

amounts contributed to such individuals for the purpose of supporting their 

activities as President or Vice President. This would include expenses incurred in 

the course of official travel.8

We have consulted the legislative history of 2 U.S.C. § 439a, first adopted as 

part of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. No. 

93—443, 88 Stat. 1289, and have found nothing that would be inconsistent with 

such an interpretation. However, in the limited time available, we similarly have 

found nothing to indicate that Congress specifically considered the provision’s 

application to the Office of the President or Vice President. The brief floor 

discussion of this provision9 and of a similar provision in a predecessor bill10 

merely focused on its application to Members of Congress, who traditionally 

have been permitted to accept gifts to defray the expenses of their offices.11 A 

regulation promulgated by the Federal Election Commission under this provision 

repeats the language of the statute. See 11 C.F.R. §§ 113.1 & 113.2. Thus, we 

are aware of no indication that Congress intended it to mean anything other than 

what it clearly says: that elected officials including the President and the Vice 

President may accept gifts to defray expenses incurred in connection with the 

performance of their duties.

9 O f course, any applicable conflict of interest provisions w ould have to be borne in mind if § 439a were to be used 

as authority for the receipt o f contributions fo r the President's or Vice P resident’s travel expenses.

’ See 120 C ong. R ec. 35139 (1974).

10 See 119 C ong. R ec. 2 6 6 0 6 -0 7 (1973).

" C ongress am ended th e provision in 1980, Pub. L. N o. 9 6 -1 8 7 , §§ 105(4), 113, 93 Stat. 1 3 5 4 ,1 3 6 6 (1980), 

generally to p rohibit a federal official from converting contributed funds for his o r her personal use. A specific 

exem ption to this provision also was added fo r individuals w ho were Senators and Representatives on January 8, 

1980.

222
Nevertheless, we would caution against complete reliance on § 439a until 

further consideration has been given to the authority under that statute for 

political committees to make contributions, and until the matter has been 

coordinated with the Federal Election Commission. In this connection, the 

Federal Election Commission has authority to render advisory opinions to federal 

officeholders about “ the application of a general rule of law stated in” the Federal 

Election Commission Act, of which § 439a is a part. See 2 U.S.C. § 437(b). To 

our knowledge, the Commission has not been called upon to and thus has not 

formally addressed the application of § 439a to gifts made to the President or the 

Vice President to defray the expenses of their offices.

Moreover, even if § 439a ultimately is to be relied upon to grant gift authority 

for the President and Vice President, we would advise that guidelines be established for the receipt of contributions under the provision. This will be necessary 

since the Standards of Conduct regulations applicable to agencies in the Executive Office of the President, 3 C.F.R. §§ 100.735—(1)—(32), were not drafted 

with the intent of regulating contributions to meet the official expenses of the 

President and Vice President. Those regulations as currently drafted might not be 

consistent with full implementation of § 439a if that were desired.

T h e o d o r e B . O l s o n

Assistant Attorney General

Office of Legal Counsel

223