The Washington Post's Christopher Lee sets to the task of answering this surprisingly difficult question:

There is a 17-word, one-sentence provision in federal law that appears to warn federal agencies away from hiring public relations firms -- the sort of arrangement that recently landed the Education Department in hot water with Congress.

"Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose," states the provision in the U.S. code.

Such language seemingly would have put the kibosh on the Education Department's $1 million-plus contract with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, an effort roundly criticized by some in Congress as propaganda. After all, the Education Department is not like, say, the Defense Department, to which Congress grants millions of dollars each year specifically for military advertising and recruiting.

Alas, it is not that simple.

Lee explains that the aformentioned 1913 law is difficult to enforce due to its perceived ambiguity. As currently read, the statute dictates that while it is illegal to produce propaganda labeled as third-party reporting (such as the fake video news releases by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), it is difficult to prove guilt in less obvious cases.

The GAO is investigating the Armstrong Williams case to see whether the Education Department acted improperly and illegally. It is unclear how they will rule, however. Check out the piece though; it's a must read for Monday.