Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

October 25. 1974

The Honorable Mark W. White, Jr. Opinion No. H- 433
Secretary of State
State Capitol Building Re: Effect of Federal
Austin, Texas 78711 -Election Campaign Act
Amendments of 1974 on
state campaign reporting
and disclosure require-
ments-for federal can-
Dear Secretary White: didates.

You have asked our opinion on several questions relating to the recently
enacted Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. One question
is of particular urgency and in order to give it immediate attention we are
treating it separately. That question asks:

If a candidate for federal office is required by
Article 14.08(h)(l)(ii), Vernon’s Texas Election
Code, to file a sworn statement by October 29, 1974,
covering the period from September 27, through
October 26, 1974, and if the reporting requirements
of Chapter 14, Vernon’s Texas Election Code, are
generally superseded or preempted by the Amend-
ments, must a report be filed by the Federal can-
didate covering all or any part of such period?

The 1974Federal Act was enacted under the Congress’ broad power to
regulate the manner of conducting elections for federal officers (II. S. Const,:
art. 1, sec. 4) and~extensively amended the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (P. L. 92-225). Section 403 of the 1971 Act (2 U.S. C. sec. 453) pro-
vided:

(a) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to
invalidate or make inapplicable any provision
of any State law, except where compliance with
such provision of law would result in a violation
of a provision of this Act.

p. 2004
 ..- -

The Honorable h&ark White, page 2 (H-433)

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), no provision
of State law shall be construed to prohibit any person
from taking any action authorized by this Act or .from
making any expenditure (as such term is defined in
section 301(f) of this Act) which he could lawfully make
under this Act.

In Attorney General Opinion H-259 (1974) we considered the relationship
of section 403 to the Texas requirements for reporting campaign contributions
and expenditures. We concluded that federal candidates were covered by the
Texas Campaign Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1973 (Acts 1973, ch. 423,
p. 1101, generally found in Chapter 14, .Texas Election Code) and were required
to conform to the requirements of the state law as well as to those of the federal
law.

The 1974 Federal Act contained two sections concerning preemption of state
law. These were the only sections of the Act to become effective immediately
on the President% sigb%ng the Bill on October 15, 1974. One of those two
provisions, section 301, amended section 403 of the 1971 Act so that it now reads:

The provisions of this Act, and of rules
prescribed under this Act, supersede and
preempt any provision of State law with re-
spect to election to Federal office.

The purpose of this preemption clause is outlined in the reports documenting
the Act’s consideration and passage. The report of the House Committee on
Administration [H. R. Rep. No. 93-1239, 93rd Gong., 2d Sess, p. 10 (1974)]
states:

It is the intent of the Committoe to preempt all
state and local laws.

. . . It ie the intent of the committee 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. Under the 1971’Act,
provision was made for filing Federal reports with
State officials and the supervisory officers were re-

p. 2005
 -

.

The Honorable Mark White, page 3 (H-433)

quired to cooperate with, and to encourage, State
officials to accept Federal reports in satisfaction
of State reporting requirements. The provision
requiring filing of Federal reports with State
officials is retained, but the provision relating
to encouraging State officials to accept Federal
reports to satisfy State reporting requirements
is deleted. Under this legislation, Federal re-
porting requirements will be the only reporting
requirements and copies of the Federal reports
must be filed with appropriate State officials.

The Conference Report [S. Rep. No. 93-1237, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess.,
p. 100-101 (1974)] on the Bill states:

. . . It is clear that the Federal law occupies the
field with respect to reporting and disclosure of
political contributions to and expenditures by
Federal candidates and political committees, but
does not affect State 1aws:as to the manner of
qualifying as a candidate, or the dates and places
of elections.

During the House debate on the Bill, Representative Frenzel, a member
of the Committee on House Administration. said:

When the committee sat down and worked out
the preemption of State law, it was considering
the most important single matter that the greatest
number of Members of Congress broughtto our
attention.

They said: ‘For heaven’s sake. get us out
of this mess of 51 laws. Get us out of all these
reports that sometimes conflict with one another.
Please preempt State laws. ’

We did that. We responded to the requests
of Members of Congress in this respect.

120 tong. Rec. H7896 (daily ed. August 8, 1974).

p. 2006
 The Honorable Mark White, page 4 (H-433)

Given the explicit language of the Act and the repeated expressions of
congressional intent, we are compelled to conclude that the 1974 Federal
Act removes the requirement that candidates for federal offices file the
October 29, 1974, report provided for under Article 14.08 (h)(l)(ii), Texas
Election Code. Of course, federal law requires these candidates to pre-
pare similar reports, copies of which must be filed with the Secretary of
State of Texas. 2 U.S.C. sets. 434. 439.

SUMMARY

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments
of 1974 specifically preempt and supersede state cam-
paign contribution and expenditure reporting laws insofar
as they relate to candidates for federal offices. Federal
candidates are not required to file reports due by state
law after October 15, 1974, although they still must file
federally required reports with the Texas Secretary of
State as well as with the appropriate federal officials.

/IJgE&

.
Attorney General of Texas

r---y
~&d
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee

p. 2007