Publicity or propaganda refers to a term of art used in the omnibus spending bills passed by Congress each year. The exact words are as follows: “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.” However, the statute does not explicitly define the phrase “publicity or propaganda.” Furthermore, the first statute that used the phrase, the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act of 1952, did not define the phrase either. No legislative history enlightens the general public about the definition of “publicity or propaganda.”
The definition is given to us by Rep. Lawrence H. Smith, the sponsor of the provision. Rep. Smith gave us a sense of the meaning when responding to the speech (p.4098) given by the administrator of the Federal Security Agency (the precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services). Rep. Smith suggested that Congress’s intention in the provision was not to impair the duty of the central government to keep the citizens informed both fully and accurately. The debate regarding the phrase engendered the possibility of vaguely defining the publicity or propaganda provision may lead to interference with legitimate educational efforts. Also, there was a keen interest in preventing the use of appropriation for glorifying individual bureaucrats.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) addresses the citizen’s right to be informed of concerns by taking a deferential and flexible approach to suspected violations of adjudication. For instance, the federal agency’s attempt to defend its own policy, point of view, and priorities is generally not regarded as propaganda. The federal agency’s attempts made that are generally not regarded as propaganda could include activities such as having luncheons with the agency leadership, meetings, or conference calls. Nevertheless, all the above-mentioned activities must be reasonably related to the duty of the agency body’s role in informing the public of the intentions and actions of the agency.
The GAO’s guideline also delineates that the guideline relies heavily on the administrative justification provided by the agency. The GAO’s guideline follows the balancing test between the public’s right to know and the agency’s duty to disclose. An opinion argues that only when the agency’s justification is palpably erroneous does the GAO find the justification as a violation. Nonetheless, legislative history is moving away from the deferential mindset; the GA has only found a few numbers of actual violations. In the small number of cases where the court decided on the propaganda concept has a pragmatic approach towards governmental agencies, in not determining them as violating the law when they spend money on political advocacy. Moreover, the courts determined that Congress intended the provision to prevent only the most obvious cases of propaganda, in line with the stance of the GAO.
The GAO, throughout its history of construing provisions for many years, has developed a doctrine of separating the “publicity or propaganda” provisions into three categories: self-aggrandizement, purely partisan purposes, and covert propaganda.
- Self-aggrandizement (puffery): the agency intentionally overstating its own importance.
- Purely partisan purposes: the agency’s activity whose sole aim is to win the electoral success of a political party or a candidate.
- Covert propaganda: the government agency preparing some media materials but distributing the materials through a non-government outlet with the source of the material undisclosed.
[Last updated in March of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]
- Keywords