united-states constitutional-law
Is it legal to give money to the Federal Government to fund specific projects?
<p>Some time ago, a few people set up a fundraiser to solicit private people to give money to fund a government project that was <em>not</em> meant as a gift to reduce the debt of the public. The campaign went sideways (embezzlement and fraud in the inducement are alledged), but I am more interested in the original idea, which I heard was illegal or even unconstitutional:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Why can't the federal government (the executive!) take the money raised by private citizens to fund a project they started? or phrased differently: What's the law that regulates it?</p>
</li>
<li><p>What is the <em>legal</em> difference between such a campaign (private citizens wanting to <em>gift</em> money to the government to fund a program) and war bonds?</p>
</li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
<p>Why can't the federal government (the executive!) take the money raised by private citizens to fund a project they started? or phrased differently: What's the law that regulates it?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There may be no legislative restriction but the government has <a href="https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stated</a> that they won't. They can do this because of the common law surrounding gifts - one of the criteria for a gift is that the recipient accepts it. The government has stated that they &quot;may&quot; accept gifts only if the gift is used to directly reduce debt. Presumably, they use &quot;may&quot; to retain their discretion in a case-by-case basis allowing them to, for example, if the gift is of questionable providence it would be rejected.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What is the legal difference between such a campaign (private citizens wanting to gift money to the government to fund a program) and war bonds?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The former is private fundraising for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled because the government will not accept gifts with such a condition. At best the promoters are misleading the contributors, at worst they are committing fraud.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/warbonds.asp#:%7E:text=A%20war%20bond%20is%20a,return%20below%20the%20market%20rate." rel="nofollow noreferrer">war bond</a> is a government-issued, usually zero-coupon, usually low-value bond sold to investors to fund a specific government purpose - specifically war. These are not gifts - they are loans from the bond purchaser which will be repaid to the bondholder on maturity.  There is no general rule against government issuing bonds nor for issuing bonds for a specific purpose. For example, if the government chose, it could issue bonds to fund a border wall.</p>

<p>Because the US government operates in a restricted fashion that is not analogous to the freedom that ordinary people have, in the US, government action requires authorization, hence the many opening lines &quot;By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including...&quot; in <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-border-security-immigration-enforcement-improvements/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">executive orders</a>. So the first action mandated is that the Sec'y of Homeland Security</p>
<blockquote>
<p>shall take all appropriate action and allocate all <strong>legally available</strong>
resources to immediately construct, operate, control, or establish
contracts to construct, operate, or control facilities to detain
aliens at or near the land border with Mexico.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That means there has to be a legal path whereby resources are utilized for this project. Congressional appropriation is one path. In a few other cases, such as the Smithsonians, the laws creating the institutions not only <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/53a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">authorized appropriations</a> (by Congress), it also allows them through various other provisions to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/50" rel="nofollow noreferrer">receive specimens</a>, and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/55" rel="nofollow noreferrer">they have the power</a> &quot;to receive money or other property by gift, bequest, or devise, and to hold and dispose of the same in promotion of the purposes thereof&quot;. They also <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/56" rel="nofollow noreferrer">have the power</a> to &quot;to make such disposal of any other moneys which have accrued, or shall hereafter accrue, as interest upon the Smithsonian fund, not herein appropriated, or not required for the purposes herein provided, as they shall deem best suited for the promotion of the purpose of the testator&quot;. Note that this only applies to funds not appropriated by Congress: this discretion required an act of Congress.</p>
<p>So in lieu of a law authorizing the receipt of donations from &quot;the public&quot;, donations cannot be accepted. Congress has authorized a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3113" rel="nofollow noreferrer">general power to receive donations</a> to reduce the national debt under 31 U.S.C. 3113, but not to fund other projects, such as build a wall.</p>

<p><strong>It is legal</strong></p>
<p>Contrary to what many commenters and posters have said, it is legal for the federal government to accept gifts for other reasons than reducing the deficit. It can even accept gifts supporting specific programs.</p>
<p>There are several statutes that <em>explicitly</em> allow for such gifts. For example, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2697" rel="nofollow noreferrer">22 USC § 2697</a> <strong>Acceptance of gifts on behalf of United States</strong> covers, <em>in some detail,</em> gifts to the Department of State. Among other things, <em>it explicitly allows conditional gifts:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><p>&quot;The Secretary of State <strong>may accept</strong> on behalf of the United States <strong>gifts made unconditionally...</strong> for the <strong>benefit</strong> of the Department of State (including the Foreign Service) or for the <strong>carrying out</strong> of any of its functions. &quot;</p>
</li>
<li><p>&quot;<strong>Conditional gifts</strong> may be so <strong>accepted at the discretion of the Secretary...</strong> and <strong>used</strong> in <em>accordance with its conditions</em>...&quot;&quot;</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The rest of this section covers topics such how gifts are to be used, and their treatment in the tax code.</p>
<p>There are many similar statutes for other departments, agencies and programs. Examples include <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2601#:%7E:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Secretary%20of%20Defense%20shall,compromise%20the%20integrity%20or%20the" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DoD,</a> <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DHHs</a> and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7705c" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FEMA</a>.</p>
