Opinion ID: 388061
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Senatorial Treatment

Text: 23 When, in 1976, Senator Cannon launched his reelection drive, the Senate restricted campaign activity by staff members only in the area of fund-handling. Senate Resolution 266, adopted in 1966, had established standards of conduct for Members, officers and employees, 55 and the sole provision dealing with staffers' participation in campaigns was Rule 43, 56 which allowed only designated employees to receive, solicit, hold, or distribute campaign funds. 57 24 Quite significantly the Senate Select Committee on Standards, in recommending Rule 43, noted the high degree of personal allegiance owed a Member of Congress by his immediate staff, and the undesirability of interference with a Member's discretion in assigning duties to staff personnel. 58 Resultantly, the Committee disavowed any intention to deter campaign activity by Senate employees beyond involvement with campaign monies. 59 The floor debate on Resolution 266 similarly was a reaffirmation that a Senator's staff was generally free to assist in his reelection efforts. Both Senator Stennis, the chairman of the Select Committee, and Senator Cooper, a member of the Committee, emphasized that, except for fundraising, the Committee had imposed no limits on staffers' campaign activities. 60 25 It was not until after Senator Cannon's 1976 reelection that the Senate began to reconsider the role of staff in senatorial campaigns. In early 1977, a Special Committee on Official Conduct was instructed to formulate standards of behavior for Members, officers and employees. 61 On March 10 of that year, the Committee reported favorably on Senate Resolution 110, which recommended major changes in the standing rules of the Senate. 62 One suggested revision was a new Rule 49, designed to refine the provisions of the older Rule 43 respecting the handling of campaign funds by forbidding staff members from soliciting such funds. 63 Paragraph 3 of Rule 49 also attempted ... to deal with some of the complicated and delicate issues relating to the political activity of officers and employees whose salaries are paid by the Senate. 64 The Committee readily acknowledged difficulties in distinguishing between a staffer's official duties and his campaign assistance, 65 but nevertheless proposed removal from the Senate payroll of officers and employees engag(ing) substantially in campaign activities. 66 The Committee said: 26 While the prohibition applies equally to activities on behalf of any candidate for Federal office, the particular concern of the Committee was that Senate staff not stay on the payroll if they are engaging in substantial campaign activities on behalf of the reelection effort of the Senator for whom they work. 27 The Committee considered writing this rule in terms of the number of hours spent on campaigning for the percentage of time spent on campaign activities, but concluded that this approach would be futile. However, the Committee believes that the intention of the rule is clear enough: If a Senate employee is substantially engaged in campaign activities on behalf of a candidate, that the employee should not be receiving his salary from the Government. The Committee understands that this is the approach currently taken by most Members of the Senate. 67 28 Because of the complexity of the issue, however, the rule's injunction was to be qualified by exceptions for an individual's political activity directly related to his official duties, 68 for campaign activity of a de minimus nature, 69 and for voluntary campaign activity on the officer's or employee's own time. 70 29 Paragraph 3 of Rule 49 represents the most serious effort a Senate unit has yet made to regulate the use of Members' personal staffs in reelection campaigns. It met a very early demise, however a fate reflective of the still-continuing inability of the Senate to prescribe binding standards of behavior in that regard, as well as of the perceived need for further study of the problem. Before Resolution 110 was introduced on the floor of the Senate, Paragraph 3 was withdrawn for reasons stated by Senator Nelson, the floor manager of the resolution: 30 The committee found it extremely difficult to write such a rule without making all political activity related to official duties look suspect. The committee concluded that to the extent a problem exists in this area, it could apply equally to the employees of a House Member or a Governor seeking Federal office, and that it was most appropriately a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. For all these reasons, the committee has recommended that the Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FECA, to (sic) study the problem in the context of its review of the FECA later this year and report proposals dealing with this subject. 71 31 Accordingly, Paragraph 3 was replaced with a provision requiring the Committee on Rules and Administration to report, within 180 days, proposals to prohibit the misuse of official staff by holders of public office in campaigns for ... election, to Federal office. 72 Resolution 110, as thus altered, was adopted by the Senate. 73 32 The report summoned by Resolution 110 did not issue early. While it was awaited, there were developments in the Senate, but these too mirrored the body's usual ambivalence on the problem. On May 11, 1977, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics rendered an interpretive ruling on the use of staff in campaigns pending availability of the report of the Committee on Rules and Administration. 74 The Committee advised: 33 In the iterim (sic), Members must use their best judgment in taking staff off the Senate payroll to devote substantial portions of their time or to participate for any extended period in such activities. The Committeee (sic) on Ethics recognizes staff frequently will be reinstated after campaign activities. 75 34 Additionally, on June 13, 1977, the Senate agreed to Resolution 188, which effectuated a recommendation by the Committee on Rules and Administration that Rule 49 be amended to allow designated employees to solicit as well as handle campaign funds. 76 It is of no little moment for this case that the Committee's report called attention to Rule 49's proposed ban on fund-solicitation by staffers, 77 and declared that aside from fund-raising rules(t)he committee is not aware of any laws which prohibit individuals who are part of a Senator's staff from participating in a Senator's reelection campaign as long as they do not neglect their Senate duties, and the committee does not feel there should be such proscriptions. 78 35 Meanwhile, the Committee on Rules and Administration pressed forward in the mission directed by Senate Resolution 110. 79 Early on, the Committee requested the American Law Division of the Library of Congress to examine and report on existing law relating to utilization of federal employees in election campaigns. 80 As the deadline for the Committee's report drew near, however, its task remained incomplete. 81 The Senate therefore authorized the Committee to consider the referred issues in two stages the first a report on current law, and the second a study of the problem based upon conclusions reached at the end of the fist stage. 82 36 The Committee issued its first report on October 17, 1977. 83 With respect to staff use in election campaigns, the report recounted the salient events discussed earlier in this opinion. 84 On the basis of this review, the Committee concluded that (o)ther than the actual handling of campaign funds, the Senate has not imposed any restrictions on the participation of a member of a Senator's staff in that Senator's reelection campaign. 85 The Committee therefore supported the 37 general rule ... that members of a Senator's staff are permitted to engage in the reelection campaign of a Senator, as long as that staff member does not neglect his or her Senate duties. The nature and scope of a staff member's Senate duties are determined by each Member of the Senate. Such duties necessarily encompass political and representational responsibilities, as well as legislative, administrative, or clerical ones, and are often performed during irregular and unconventional work hours. A similar rule of practice has been followed in the House of Representatives, and would be generally applicable to other Federal employees not covered by the Hatch Act. 86 38 The Committee announced its intention to study, as the second stage of its work, the role of staff members in political campaigns 87 a project in which the Committee presumably is still engaged. 88 39