Opinion ID: 388061
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Statutory, Administrative and Case Law

Text: 21 Appellant cites no judicial decision or administrative ruling, nor has our own research revealed any, establishing a standard to guide a court in determination of the issue generated by the first count of the complaint. Nor have we encountered any statute affording that kind of assistance. 47 It is true that sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service are statutorily confined to the objects for which they are respectively made, and consequently are available for no others. 48 But we are unable to agree with the American Law Division of the Library of Congress 49 in its conclusion that this statutory directive perforce bars public compensation of congressional staff members for the performance of campaign activities. 50 The unambiguous meaning of this relatively straightforward provision is simply that appropriated funds are to be applied solely to statutorily-enumerated purposes, 51 and the appropriations bills covering the era of Senator Cannon's reelection campaign tells us no more than that their purpose was compensation of officers, employees, clerks to Senators. 52 Even assuming, as fairly we may, that the funds appropriated were intended solely to compensate staffers for performance of their official duties, we are left with the perplexing question whether campaign work is official activity. 53 Not even the Senate itself has been able to reach a consensus on the propriety of using staff members in reelection campaigns; 54 rather, the history of its attempts to develop a suitable rule reveals the lack of a firm standard during the period relevant to this case, and vividly portrays the keen difficulties with which courts would be faced were they to attempt to design guidelines on their own. 22