Federal Election Commission Main Page
September 1, 1978
AO 1978-54
Louise Lindblom, Executive Director
The Democratic Party of Alabama
306 Jefferson Federal Building
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Dear Ms. Lindblom:
This is in response to your letter of July 27,
1978, with enclosures, requesting an advisory opinion
on behalf of the Democratic Party of Alabama concerning
preemption by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,
as amended ("the Act") of Alabama statutes relating
to the designation of political committees by candidates
for Federal office.
You enclose a copy of a letter from the Attorney
General of Alabama which makes reference to 2 U.S.C.
SS 453. Additionally, you enclose a copy of a decision
by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, dated
July 26, 1978, expressing a conclusion on Federal preemption
which appears contrary to the opinion of the
Attorney General of Alabama. In light of these different
interpretations, you ask whether the Act supersedes
and preempts the requirements of Alabama Law contained
in Chapter 22 of Title 17, Code of Alabama 1975, and
particularly SS 17-22-5 and SS 17-22-6, with respect to
candidates for Federal office.
The Act and Commission regulations prescribed thereunder
supersede and preempt any conflicting or overlapping provision
of State law with respect to election to Federal
office. 2 U.S.C. SS 453. The constitutional underpinning
of SS 453 is apparent from the supremacy clause of the
Constitution which requires that where there is a clear
collision between State and Federal law, or a conflict
between Federal law and the application of an otherwise
valid State enactment, Federal law will prevail. Hamm
v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306, 311-312 (1964).
it will not be presumed that a Federal statute was intended
to supersede the exercise of a given power by a State
unless there in a clear manifestation of intention to
do so, since the exercise of Federal supremacy will
not lightly be presumed, Schwartz v. State of Texas,
344 U.S. 199, 202-203 (1952).
It is clear that Congress intended "to make certain
that the Federal law is construed to occupy the field
with respect to elections to Federal office and that
the Federal law will be the sole authority under which
such elections will be regulated."1/ The Conference
Committee Report goes on to state that "[t]he provisions
of the conference substitute make it clear that the
Federal law occupies the field with respect to criminal
sanctions relating to limitations on campaign expenditures,
the sources of campaign funds used in Federal races,
the conduct of Federal campaigns, and similar offenses,
but does not affect the States' rights to prohibit false
registration, voting fraud theft of ballots, and similar
offenses under State law"2/ (Emphasis added)
Commission regulations follow these expressions
of legislative intent by explaining that the Act and
regulations thereunder supersede and preempt State law
with respect to: the organization and registration of
political committees supporting Federal candidates,
the reporting and disclosure of political contributions
and expenditures to and by candidates for Federal office
and political committees supporting them, and limitations
on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal
candidates and political committees. 11 CFR 108.7(b).
1/ Report of the Committee on House Administration on the
Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1974 (Report
No. 93-1239, 93 Cong., 2d Sess. 10, 1974).
2/ Report of the Committee on Conference on the Federal
Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (Report No. 93-1438,
93d Cong., 2d Sess., 69, 2974). See also pages
100 and 101.
The Commission notes that the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, decided that SS 17-22-5 and
SS 17-22-6 of the Code of Alabama do not, by their terms,
cover or apply to a candidate for Federal office. The
Commission believes that any construction of these State
statutes 3/ which would make them applicable to candidates
for Federal office would be without affect since Congress
intended for Federal law to supersede State law with
respect to the "registration of political committees
supporting Federal candidates." 11 CFR 108.7(b)(1).
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning
the application of a general rule of law stated
in the Act or prescribed as a commission regulation
to the specific factual situation set forth in your
request. See 2 U.S.C. SS 437f.
3/ The Commission notes that the Circuit Court opinion enclosed
with your letter relies on Jones v. Phillips, 279 Ala. 354,
185 So.2d 378 (1966), in concluding that the requirements
of SS 17-22-5 are not superseded or preempted by the Act.
However, the Commission would point out that the Court in
Jones did not consider application of the Alabama statute
to a candidate for Federal office. Furthermore, Jones was
decided prior to the Amendments to the Act which clearly
established that the Act superceded State law as to Federal
election campaigns.