18 U.S.C. § 1913

Lobbying with appropriated moneys

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Nat'l Treasury Employees' Union v. Alan K. Campbell, in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of the Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 654 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Nat'l Treasury Employees' Union v. Alan K. Campbell, in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of the Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 654 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 9× “The second statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1913 : No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed…”
Grassley v. Legal Servs. Corp., 535 F. Supp. 818 (S.D. Iowa 1982). · cites it 5× “, 18 U.S.C. § 1913 , and the Moorhead Amendment, Pub.”
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). “” Con- straints Imposed by 18 U. S. C. § 1913 on Lobbying Efforts, 13 Op.”
Sierra Club v. Cecil D. Andrus, Sec'y of the Interior & James T. Lynn, Dir. of Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 581 F.2d 895 (D.C. Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “” For example, Congress also very pointedly makes the same distinction in the criminal code between “legislation or appropriations,” 18 U.S.C. § 1913 . 10 Congress also distinguishes between “legislation” and “appropriations” in 22 U.”
John Doe v. William H. Webster, Dir., Fbi, 606 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “§ 655 (1976) (bank examiners convicted of theft); 18 U.S.C. § 1913 (1976) (officers found guilty of lobbying with appropriated monies).”
Granite State Chapter, Ass'n of Civilian Technicians v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 173 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “636, 651, 654 (1996) (the Act) and 18 U.S.C. § 1913 . The Union filed an unfair labor practice claim, charging failure to bargain in good faith, which the parties submitted to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (the Authority) on stipulated facts.”
Rigdon v. Perry, 962 F. Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1997). · cites it 3× “On the same day, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs issued a similar memorandum; this memorandum explicitly invoked the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1913 . The Anti-Lobbying Act provides that, absent express congressional authorization, no part of any money…”
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). “” Constraints Imposed by 18 U. S. C. §1913 on Lobbying Efforts, 13 Op.”
Ass'n of Civilian Technicians v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 269 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Authority rejected the union’s argument that similar collective bargaining agreement provisions were held to be consistent with other anti-lobbying laws, including 18 U.S.C. § 1913 , and section 8001 of the Appropriations Act.”
Georgia State Chapter Ass'n of Civilian Technicians v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 184 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “In an anticipatory defense, the General Counsel maintained that a criminal provision — 18 U.S.C. § 1913 — did not render the administrative leave provision illegal.”
Kirkpatrick v. White, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (N.D. Ala. 2004). · cites it 2× “22(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 1913 and that DESE and Wallace Kirkpatrick presented false claims to the Army in violation of 18 U.”
Am. Pub. Gas Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Admin., 408 F. Supp. 640 (D.D.C. 1976). · cites it 2× “This attempt, they argue, violates 18 U.S.C. § 1913 (1970), which generally prohibits federal officials from using federal funds directly or indirectly to conduct activities “intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.