Application of Anti-Lobbying Laws to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Open Letter to State Level Prosecutors

B-301022: Mar 10, 2004

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

This decision responds to Rep. Ron Paul's request seeking our opinion as to whether statements made in a letter issued by the Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), violate applicable anti-lobbying provisions. Specifically, Rep. Paul asked that we determine whether a November 1, 2002, letter sent by the Deputy Director to various state level prosecutors in the United States violates the ban on spending funds for "publicity or propaganda." In addition, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, we were asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana.

We conclude that the Deputy Director did not violate applicable anti-lobbying provisions. In addition, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated,we do not have a basis for criticizing the Deputy Director's November 1, 2002, statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. Even though the statements may have been controversial, they were made within the context of ONDCP's statutory responsibilities, which include taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain controlled substances such as marijuana.

Application of Anti-Lobbying Laws to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Open Letter to State Level Prosecutors, B-301022, March 10, 2004

The complete HTML file for B-301022 will be available soon.

Apr 20, 2017

Apr 19, 2017

Apr 18, 2017

Apr 17, 2017

Apr 14, 2017

  • Anders Construction, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
    B-414261
  • ICF Incorporated, LLC
    We deny the protest.
    B-414247,B-414247.3,B-414247.5
  • Planning & Learning Technologies, Inc.--Advisory Opinion
    On July 19, we dismissed Paltech's protest, and several others, when another offeror under the solicitation submitted a protest to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. 21.11(b) (2016). On August 1, the Department of Justice filed a motion with the court requesting an advisory opinion from our Office. The court granted the motion and requested that our Office issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the protest Paltech filed with our Office. See id. Our opinion here is issued in response to the court's request, and is presented in the same general format as we normally employ to issue decisions responding to bid protests. Our Office finds the protest without merit, and we would deny this protest.
    B-413156.23
  • The Arbinger Company--Advisory Opinion
    On July 19, we dismissed Arbinger's protest, and several others, when another offeror under the solicitation submitted a protest to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. 21.11(b) (2016). On August 5, the parties (Arbinger and the Department of Justice) filed a joint motion with the court requesting an advisory opinion from our Office. The court granted the motion and requested that our Office provide an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the protest Arbinger filed with our Office. See id. Our opinion here is issued in response to the court's request, and is presented in the same general format as we normally employ to issue decisions responding to bid protests. Our Office finds the protest without merit, and we would deny this protest.
    B-413156.21

Looking for more? Browse all our products here