Unfair Advantage: The Abuse of State Resources in Elections provisions on the application of this prohibition to various types of government resources, are the implementing measures of the appropriations statute within Congress.113 The prohibition against using official resources for campaign or political purposes extends to the following: funds supporting congressional administrative offices and congressional committees; funds allotted to each Member for the operation of their personal congressional office;114 and goods and services, including staff time and equipment, purchased or leased with official funds.115 There are also specific regulations prohibiting congressional funds from being used for campaign or political travel.116 Senators and their legislative staff are prohibited from receiving reimbursement or payment for official travel (other than actual transportation costs) occurring within 60 days of the senator’s election.117 iii. Restrictions on Official Government Communications to the Public In order to conserve tax dollars for governance functions,118 maintain the credibility of government communications,119 and prevent an incumbent from abusing the government’s communication resources to gain an electoral advantage,120 it is important for the legal and regulatory framework to provide guidance on allowable and unallowable uses of official government communications during the electoral period.121 Inequitable access to government channels of communication for electoral campaigning can tilt the playing field heavily in the direction of the incumbent party. For example, Uganda’s ruling National See House Ethics Manual, supra note 62, at 121-84, 323-33; see also Senate Ethics Manual, supra note 62, at 139-58; General Prohibition Against using Official Resources for Campaign or Political Purposes, Committee Ethics, [hereinafter General Prohibition Against using Official Resources] http://ethics.house.gov/general-prohibitionagainst-using-official-resources-campaign-or-political-purposes (last visited Jul. 1, 2016). 114 See House Ethics Manual, supra note 62, at 123-25; see also Members’ Congressional Handbook, supra note 96, at 1-2; Senate Manual, supra note 96, at §§ 106-107. 115 See House Ethics Manual, supra note 62, at 123; see also Senate Manual, supra note 96, at §§ 993-994. 116 See House Ethics Manual, supra note 62, at 116, 131; see also Members’ Congressional Handbook, supra note 96, at 29; Committees’ Congressional Handbook, supra note 103. 117 See Senate Manual, supra note 96, at § 994(e). 118 See, e.g., Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371, 373, 1 S. Ct. 381, 384, 27 L. Ed. 232 (1882) (stating that federal restrictions on the abuse of state resources were intended to “promote efficiency and integrity in the discharge of official duties”); Eleanor Smith & Leslie B. Kiernan, The Civil Hatch Act and Post-Government Employment Restrictions, Political Activity, Lobbying Laws & Gift Rules Guide, 3d § 19:6 (describing “efficiency” as a purpose for federal restrictions on using government resources for electoral purposes). 119 See, e.g., 39 U.S.C. § 3210(a)(5)(A) (providing that official federal legislative communications may not be used “to solicit political support for the sender or any other person or any political party, or a vote or financial assistance for any candidate for any public office”); Or. Rev. Stat. § 244.010 (“[t]he Legislative Assembly declares that service as a public official is a public trust and that, as one safeguard for that trust, the people require all public officials to comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter”). 120 See, e.g., U. S. Civil Service Comm’n v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. at 564-67 (1973) (stating that a purpose of federal restrictions on electoral use of government resources was to prevent the conversion of public service into “a powerful, invincible, and perhaps corrupt political machine”); Common Cause v. Bolger, 574 F. Supp. 672, 683 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 461 U.S. 911 (1983) (finding that federal restrictions reflect “the basic principle that government funds should not be spent to help incumbents gain reelection”). 121 This paper does not address restrictions placed on publicly-owned media, given the differences between funding sources and the types of content broadcasted by public television and radio outlets. Public media may have a much greater impact on the electoral process in many countries around the world where there are limited sources of information and, therefore, may require that they are governed by a more extensive regulatory framework than privately held media outlets. The topic will be explored further in IFES’ larger research project on this subject. 113 15