Federal Election Commission Main Page
April 30, 1982
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ADVISORY OPINION 1982-29
Janet M. Lashendock
Treasurer, United Telecom
Political Action Committee
P.O. Box 11315
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Dear Ms. Lashendock:
This responds to your letter of March 26, 1982, requesting
an advisory opinion on behalf of United Telecom Political Action
Committee ("UniPAC") concerning application of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act") to the use
of payroll deduction as a means of facilitating contributions to
UniPAC.
In your request, you state that UniPAC is the separate
segregated fund of United Telecommunications, Inc., a corporation
with offices in Westwood, Kansas and subsidiary operations in at
least 21 states. You state that UniPAC contributes only to
candidates for the United States Senate and House of
Representatives, not to State or local candidates. UniPAC would
like to offer payroll deduction as an option to as many of the
subsidiaries of United Telecommunications, Inc. as choose to use
it. The specific questions presented in your request are (1)
whether UniPAC may offer this option, and (2) whether the Act
supersedes any State law concerning payroll deduction to UniPAC.
The Commission answers both questions in the affirmative.
In response to your first question, the Act allows a corporation
to use a payroll deduction program to facilitate the making of
voluntary contributions to a separate segregated fund from the
executive or administrative personnel of the corporation. See 2
U.S.C. SS 441b(b)(5); 11 CFR 114.1(f), 114.5(k)(1); H.R. Conf. Rep.
No. 1057, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 62 (1976); Re: Advisory Opinion
Request 1976-23, copy enclosed. The Act further permits a
corporation to solicit the stockholders and executive or
administrative personnel of its subsidiaries. See 2 U.S.C.
SS 441b(b)(4)(A)(i); 11 CFR 114.5(g)(1); Advisory Opinions 1980-98,
1979-77, 1979-44, 1978-75, 1978-27, copies enclosed. UniPAC may,
therefore, offer a payroll deduction plan to all of those
subsidiaries of United Telecommunications, Inc. that wish to
participate in such a plan.
In response to your second question, the Act's preemption
provision is set forth at 2 U.S.C. SS 453:
The provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed
under this Act, supersede and preempt any provision of
State law with respect to election to Federal office.
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 Federal law will be the sole
authority under which such elections will be regulated." H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 1438, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1974). 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...." Id. at 69 (emphasis
added). See also 11 CFR 109.7(b) and Advisory Opinions 1980-47,
1978-66, 1978-54 and 1978-24, copies enclosed.
Moreover, in amending the Act in 1976, Congress expressly
intended to supersede and preempt any provision of State or
Federal law that would prohibit the use of payroll deduction as a
means of facilitating the making of voluntary contributions to
separate segregated funds. As the Conference Committee Report
explained:
The House amendment was intended to acknowledge the use
by corporations of various methods, such as check-off
systems, to solicit voluntary contributions to separate
segregated political funds.... The House amendment
also intended to authorize such methods notwithstanding
any other provision of law.*/
*/ The House amendment was adopted in the final version of the
Act.
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1057, supra at 62 (emphasis added); see also
Re: Advisory Opinion Request 1976-23. Because UniPAC
contributes only to Federal candidates, the Commission concludes
that the Act would supersede or preempt any State law prohibiting
the proposed use of payroll deduction as a means of facilitating
voluntary contributions to UniPAC. The Commission notes,
however, that you have not presented for the Commission's
consideration any specific State law and asked whether the Act
preempts that law. Accordingly, the Commission expresses no
opinion concerning whether the Act supersedes or preempts any
State laws other than those which would prohibit the proposed use
of payroll deduction to UniPAC.
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning
application of the Act, or regulations prescribed by the
Commission, to the specific transaction or activity set forth in
your request. See 2 U.S.C. SS 437f.