Constitutionality of preventing non-residents from contributing to candidates for federal offices elected from within this state

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) f RICHAltD S. CmrnN ATTCJili'l'.cY (,' r,Jf:H/\L ,10IJN 1\f. ::. ['.\·J·1,:JtSON STATE OF MA.INF Dt•;PJ\ltTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 0433,3 February 20, 1979 Honorable Harold Silverman .Maine Senate State House Augusta, .Maine 04333 Dear Senator Silverman: DEPUTY ATTORI\JeY GENERAi_ You have asked whether the State may constitutiona1ly prevent non-residents from contributing to candidates for federal offices elected from within the State. Our answer is that, in view of certain provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, as amended, a state may not attempt to regulate contributions to candidates for federal office. The general rule regarding the power of the states to regulate federal elections was stated by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): "[T]he states are authorized by the constitution to legislate on the sub- ject [of Congressional elections] to the extent that Congress has not restricted state action by the exercise of its powers to regulate elections under [the Constitution]." Id. at 315. In 1974, the Congress chose to exercise this power by enacting the Federal Election Campaign Act, section 101 of which sets forth a comprehensive set of limitations on con- tributions to candidates for federal office by individuals and political organizations. Moreover, in section 104 of the Act, the Congress specified that the provisions of the Act "relating to elections and political activities, supercede J Page 2 and preempt any provislons of state law 'ci.ith respect to fer1. • 1.-:-al off ice." 88 Stat. l 72. * The constitut:.Lona.lity of the A.ct':: limitations on contributions has been sustained by the United States Supreme Court. Buckly v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 23-;38 (1976). It is clear, thereTbre, Ehat the states may not legi-slate in this area. In view of this conclusion, there is no necessity for dis- cussing the more complicated questions of whether a state law regulating contributions of non-residents to candidates fo1: federal offices would violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (freedom of speech and association), the first clause of the second sentence of the Fourteenth Amend- ment (.privileges and immunities), or the third clause of the second sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection). I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further service. RSC/ec ,,/-] . ( \7,1ncer,t1f, / / y ' I ' \' /; :, l ~ /~ f__M,Jft. :rrcHARif S • COHEN '- Attorney General * .The provisions of the Act regarding contributions originally appeared at 18 U.S.C. § 608, but were amended and moved to 2 U.S.C. § 441a in the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976. Although no statement as to pre- emption of state laws appears in the 1976 Act, there is no reason to suppose that Congress intended to change its intention that such laws be preempted.