International Foundation for Electoral Systems U.S. state governments may issue rules intended to prevent their physical resources and other property from being used in a manner that could influence an election. Many states strictly ban any use of state equipment, facilities, materials, vehicles, supplies, or other public property for partisan election activity.105 States tailor their restrictions and related exemptions in a manner that best suits their respective preferences, contexts, and policy concerns. Restrictions on Usage of State Funds It is important for legal frameworks to prevent incumbents’ abuse of state funding for electoral purposes, and to provide equal access to any state funding for all political parties and/or candidates.106 There are a variety of approaches states can take to regulate the use of state funds. Ohman raises the option of banning the use of certain funds in election campaigns; for example, in Poland, the law prevents campaign expenditures from being paid for using national or local government budgets.107 States may opt to ban public agencies from providing funds to political parties or candidates. Political parties and candidates may also be required to provide information on their personal and election-related expenses to identify instances where administrative resources have been abused. Approximately two-thirds of all countries have reporting requirements in their legal and regulatory framework for political parties, while approximately half have the same requirements for candidates.108 Speck and Fontana highlight several ways that state funds can be abused for campaigns, which can range from direct theft of government funds, providing subsidies to nonprofit organizations which then send funds to political parties, or negotiating contracts to private companies at inflated rates and having excess funds diverted back to the government party.109 Transparency International Sri Lanka lamented that state funds were used to enable an unprecedented level of vote buying and bribery during the 2015 presidential elections. A wide variety of items from clothing to mobile phones were purchased with government funds and effectively distributed as bribes.110 The ruling National Resistance Movement in Uganda also took advantage of its incumbent position to access a variety of state funds and other resources for use in the 2016 election campaign. For example, the European Union Election Observation Mission reported: “The state budget covered [the President’s] travel and accommodation costs on the campaign trail.”111 In the U.S., a federal statute generally prohibits the use of appropriated funds for anything other than their intended purpose.112 The rules and guidance issued by the United States House of Representatives and Senate prohibiting the misuse of official funds for campaign or political purposes, and the detailed See, e.g., Ala. Code § 36-25-5(d); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-192(A); Colo. Stat. § 24-50-132; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-266a(b); D.C. Muni. Regs. §§ 1800.3(i), 1808.1; Ga. Code § 21-5-30.2; Ill. Comp. Stat. § 430/5-15(a); Ind. Code § 4-2-6-17(a); Iowa Code § 68A.505; Kan. Stat. § 25-4169a(a)(1); 3 Me. Rev. Stat. §170-A; Mich. Comp. L. § 15.342(3); Minn. Stat. §16A.139(a); Mo. Stat. § 36.157; N.M. Stat. § 10-16-3.1(C); Okla. Ethics Comm’n R. 2.3-2.8 (2015), available at https://www.ok.gov/ethics/Ethics_Laws,_Guides_&_Forms/index.html; S.C. Stat. § 8-13-765; Tenn. Code § 2-19-202(a); Tex. Gov’t Code § 556.004(a); Utah Code § 76-8-402(1); Vt. Personnel and Procedures Manual at 5.7(1) (2015), available at http://humanresources.vermont.gov/labor-relations/manual; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 42.17A.555, 42.52.180. 106 ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network, The ACE Encyclopaedia: Parties and Candidates 23 (2013). 107 See TIDE, supra note 4, at 138-39 (discussing Article 86 of the Polish Presidential Election Law). 108 Id. at 142. 109 See Speck & Fontana, supra note 3, at 4-5. 110 See Transparency Int’l, Sri Lanka Electoral Integrity Report, supra note 48, at 22-26. 111 EU EOM, Final Report: Uganda Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council Elections 17 (2016) [hereinafter EU EOM Uganda Final Report]. 112 31 U.S.C.A. § 1301 (1982). 105 14