Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

The following is not meant to be legal advice, and may be outdated research.

The general rule is that expenditures by an administrative official are proper only insofar as they are explicitly or implicitly authorized by legislative enactment.  Uhl v. Badaracco, 199 Cal. 270, 284, 248 P. 917 (1926).  Unauthorized expenditures by public officials are void and private parties who have contracted with the officials cannot recover for the benefits conferred.  23 Hastings L. J. 874.

However, Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal. 3d. 206 (1976) illustrated a method to avoid the effects of the void contract rule.  In Stanson, California voters approved a $250 million bond issue to provide funds for the future acquisition of park land and facilities by state and municipal authorities.  Before the election, plaintiff Stanson alleged that defendant Mott, director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, authorized the expenditure of public funds to promote the passage of the bond issue. 

Asserting the illegality of this use of public funds, the plaintiff sought a judgment that required Mott personally to repay the funds to the state treasury.  The Supreme Court held that while the Department of Parks and Recreation had the authority to spend funds for public informational purposes, there was no legislative provision that sanctioned election campaign expenditures.