WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Governor

appropriations proposed by the Governor nor add to the Budget Bill items of
appropriation not proposed by the Governor. § 52(6). Finally, the Budget Bill as passed
by the General Assembly must be balanced, i.e., the figure for the total proposed
appropriations may not exceed the total estimated revenues. § 52(5a). If the General
Assembly desires to make other appropriations, it must do so in accordance with §
52(8), which requires that it levy a tax to pay for the supplementary appropriation.
Maryland Action for Foster Children v. State. 279 Md. 133, 142 (1977).

Thus, "[t]he constitutional objective, as revealed by these provisions, is two-fold:
first, to prevent the possible disturbance of the balanced budget which the plan
contemplated, and, second, to allow legislative additions to the executive budget if, and
only if, the legislature is willing to assume the burden and responsibility of sponsoring
the necessary taxes to finance its proposals for additional expenditures." McKeldin v.
Steedman, 203 Md. at 98.

Given the well-established language, background, and intent of the Budget
Amendment of the Constitution, if the question presented by House Bill 134 were
entirely one of first impression, we would not hesitate to conclude that the diversion of
State tax dollars from the general revenues of the State would so seriously undermine
the Executive Budget system as to be clearly unconstitutional; for such diversions would
preempt the Governor's ability to develop the complete and balanced plan of proposed
expenditures and estimated revenues required by § 52. However, we do not write upon
an entirely clean slate.

In 1921, only five years after the adoption of the Budget Amendment, Attorney
General Armstrong advised the Secretary of the Board of Motion Picture Censors;

In my judgment, the Budget Amendment applies only to appropriations made
out of the Treasury and was not intended to prevent the Legislature from
designating the manner of use of monies received by various agents of the
State prior to the time when these monies find their way into the State
Treasury. In the case presented by you, the fees earned by your Board are paid
directly to you, and while Section 3 [of the Budget Bill] places a lien upon
these fees to the extent of your Budget appropriation out of the Treasury, and
thereby compels you to return to the Treasury out of your fees the full amount
of your appropriation, your excess earnings remain in the hands of the Board,
and if the General Assembly sanctions their use with the consent of the
Governor, I do not believe that it has exceeded its constitutional authority or
violated the limitations of the Budget Amendment, because its action does not
constitute an appropriation of monies out of the Treasury of the State.

⁶ Opinions of the Attorney General 345, 346 (1921) (emphasis in original). See also ⁶
Opinions of the Attorney General 263, 265-66 (1921) (similar conclusion regarding
University of Maryland's use of funds from sources other than the Treasury).

Of even greater cause for concern is the decision of the Court of Appeals in
Baltimore v. O'Conor, 147 Md. 639 91925). In that case, the Court struck down a statute
that would have authorized the diversion of surplus funds specifically required by
Article XV, § 1 of the Constitution to be deposited in the State Treasury. The Court did

- 3281 -