Translate Website | Traducir Sitio Web
Translate Website | Traducir Sitio Web
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what we’ll cover in this section.
Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns
The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public funds in election campaigns.
In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign.”
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure elections.
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Question: TRUE or FALSE: An expenditure of government funds is legally sufficient if it benefits the public.
Answer: False. Even if an expenditure of government funds benefits the public, it is not legally permissible unless it is authorized by law.
Question: Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
Question: Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
You have completed the "Misuse of Public Funds" module. The next module is Other Laws.
The California Attorney General's Office and the Fair Political Practices Commission