Unfair Advantage: The Abuse of State Resources in Elections In addition to disciplinary action available under the Hatch Act and ethics committees, individuals may be subject to criminal penalties for abusing physical resources and state funds. Under 18 U.S.C. § 607, if an employee or official of the federal government – including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress – solicit funds for a campaign while in a government building used for official government duties, he or she may be sanctioned with a $5,000 criminal fine and/or up to three years in prison.185 Of note, there are no recent reported cases of 18 U.S.C. § 607 being utilized to prosecute individuals for soliciting funds from government buildings.186 However, other tangential criminal statutes187 have been utilized in two cases attempting to hold Members of Congress accountable for representing that public funds were used to pay staff for official conduct, when in fact the time was campaign-related. The courts’ decisions in these cases held that although federal appropriations generally require funds to be used for the purposes for which they were allocated,188 the issue was non-justiciable because congressional rules, rather than a statute, explicitly prohibit funds from being used for campaign purposes.189 Both of those decisions found that the Senate and House Committees should determine whether funds had been used inappropriately, and whether false statements had been made, pursuant to their own standards of prohibited conduct.190 Thus Members of Congress who inappropriately use Congressional funds for campaign purposes will be subject to disciplinary action from their respective ethics committees. In the House of Representatives, there is no specific listing of which sanctions are to be issued for which violations of laws, regulations, or codes of conduct that are applicable to Members and employees.191 Thus, if a Member abuses the franking privilege, he or she may be subject to any of the disciplinary actions available to the House Committee on Ethics, including expulsion, censure, reprimands, and fines, among other penalties.192 Similarly, if a Member in the Senate abuses his or her franking privilege, he or she technically may be subject to any of the available disciplinary actions available to the Select Committee on Ethics.193 These disciplinary actions include expulsion, censure, financial restitution, referral to a party conference, reprimand, or public or private “Letters of Admonition.”194 However, the most likely disciplinary action for abusing the privilege is that the Member would receive a reprimand letter and would be required to refund the cost of the mailing.195 Moreover, criminal fines may be issued 18 U.S.C.A. § 607 (2002). The last reported case is in 1908. See United States v. Thayer, 209 U.S. 29 (1908). The Department of Justice has stated that “most matters that have arisen under § 607 have involved computer-generated direct mail campaigns. . .such matters are unlikely to warrant prosecution.” Craig C. Donsanto et al., supra note 59, at 114. Rather, the DOJ will inform the individual of the prohibition, and ask that the mailing cease, but if there is a failure to comply, the situation may then give rise to prosecution. Id. 187 18 U.S.C.A. §641 (2004) (theft of government property or funds) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 (2006) (making false statements to the government). 188 31 U.S.C.A. § 1301. 189 See United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (DC Cir 1995); see also United State ex rel. Joseph v. Cannon, 642 F.2d 1373 (DC Cir 1981). 190 See Id. 191 See Jack Maskell, supra note 180. 192 See H.R. Comm. On Ethics, 114th Cong, Rules 24(d)-(e) (2015). 193 Senate Franking Regulations, supra note 128, at 17 (“[t]he Committee is empowered, if it determines there is a reasonable justification for the complaint. . . [to] recommend disciplinary measures”). 194 Jacob R. Straus, supra note 163, at 15. Letters of Admonition are technically not considered acts of discipline, but they may still be issued by the Ethics Committee. Id. 195 See Select Comm. on ethics, franking: quick reference 2, http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/ serve?File_id=116386DE-CE5F-4C66-B2A2-C06B0771EEB9 (last visited June 7, 2016); see also Public Citizen Files Complaint for Violations of Franking Privilege, supra note 162. 185 186 23