Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided February 26, 1992·No. 91-504·Published

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

DANIEL E. LUNGREN

Attorney General

______________________________________

OPINION : : No. 91-504 of : : FEBRUARY 26, 1992 DANIEL E. LUNGREN : Attorney General : : CLAYTON P. ROCHE : Deputy Attorney General : : ______________________________________________________________________________

THE HONORABLE BILL JONES, MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question:

With respect to surplus campaign funds held by a statewide ballot measure committee after an election, may the committee (1) return the funds to contributors on a pro rata basis; (2) return the funds only to contributors of a specified minimum amount; (3) donate the funds to a nonprofit organization or a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation; (4) contribute the funds to another ballot measure committee, to a candidate committee, or to a political party; (5) use the funds for educational or lobbying efforts with respect to the subject of the ballot measure, if the committee is established for purposes in addition to supporting the ballot measure; or (6) retain the funds for use in a future ballot measure campaign on the same or related subjects?

CONCLUSION

With respect to surplus campaign funds held by a statewide ballot measure committee after an election, the committee may (1) return the funds to contributors on a pro rata basis; (2) return the funds only to contributors of a specified minimum amount; (3) donate the funds to a nonprofit organization or a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation; (4) contribute the funds to another ballot measure committee, to a candidate committee, or to a political party; (5) use the funds for educational or lobbying efforts with respect to the subject of the ballot measure, if the committee is established for purposes in addition to supporting the ballot measure; or (6) retain the funds for use in a future ballot measure campaign on the same or related subjects.

ANALYSIS

The question presented for resolution concerns the disposition of surplus campaign funds held by a statewide ballot measure committee after an election has taken place. To what extent does California law place restrictions upon the use of surplus funds in the possession of such

1. 91-504

a committee? We conclude that the committee may generally distribute the funds so long as committee members are not personally benefitted.

Government Code section 895191 is the only statute in California expressly dealing with the disposition of surplus campaign funds after an election. It states:

"Upon leaving any elected office, or at the end of the postelection reporting period following the defeat of a candidate for elective office, whichever occurs last, campaign funds raised after January 1, 1989, under the control of the former candidate or elected officer shall be considered surplus campaign funds and shall be disclosed pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 84100) and shall be used only for the following purposes:

"(a) The payment of outstanding campaign debts or elected officer's expenses.

"(b) The pro rate repayment of contributions.

"(c) Donations to any bona fide charitable, educational, civic, religious, or similar tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, where no substantial part of the proceeds will have a material financial effect on the former candidate or elected officer, any member of his or her immediate family, or his or her campaign treasurer.

"(d) Contributions to a political party or committee so long as the funds are not used to make contributions in support of or opposition to a candidate for elective office.

"(e) Contributions to support or oppose any candidate for federal office, any candidate for elective office in a state other than California, or any ballot measure.

"(f) The payment for professional services reasonably required by the committee to assist in the performance of its administrative functions, including payment for attorney's fees or litigation which arises directly out of a candidate's or elected officer's activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer, including, but not limited to, an action to enjoin defamation, defense of an action brought of a violation of state or local campaign disclosure, or election laws, and an action arising from an election contest or recount."

Section 89519 is part of a statutory scheme (§§ 89510-89522), sometimes known as the Personal Use Law, that places certain restrictions upon the use of campaign funds held by, among others, a ballot measure committee. (See § 89511, subd. (a).) For example, it requires that "[e]xpenditures which confer a substantial personal benefit shall be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose" (§ 89512) and "[c]ampaign funds shall not be used to make personal gifts unless the gift is directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose" (§ 89513, subd. (f)(1)).

The Personal Use Law allows the use of campaign funds for "donations or loans to bona fide charitable, educational, civic, religious, or similar tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations,

1 All section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.

2. 91-504

when no substantial part of the proceeds will have a material financial effect on the candidate, elected officer, member of his or her immediate family, or the campaign treasurer, and where the donation or loan bears a reasonable relation to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose." (§ 89515.)

However, section 89519 is the only provision of the Personal Use Law dealing with surplus campaign funds remaining after an election, and it is expressly limited to "campaign funds raised after January 1, 1989, under the control of [a] former candidate or elected officer." The Legislature has omitted from this statutory provision any reference to ballot measure committees. Because the Legislature has referred to committees in other provisions of the Personal Use Law (§§ 89513, 89516, 89517) but only to a "former candidate or elected officer" in section 89519, we apply the rule of construction that "when the drafters of a statute have employed a term in one place and omitted it in another, it should not be inferred where it has been excluded." (People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1010.) Hence, we conclude that the Personal Use Law does not apply to surplus campaign funds held by a ballot measure committee.2

We next turn to Elections Code section 29795,3 which specifically governs campaign funds held by a ballot measure committee. It states:

"Every person who is entrusted with money or things of value, for the purpose of promoting or defeating any initiative, referendum, or recall petition or any measure which has qualified for the ballot is a trustee of the money or things of value. If a person wrongfully appropriates the money or things of value to any use or purpose not in the due and lawful execution of the trust, the person shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The following expenses are within the due and lawful execution of the trust:

"(a) Securing signatures to initiative, referendum, or recall petitions.

"(b) Circulating initiative, referendum, or recall petitions.

"(c) Holding and conducting public meetings.

"(d) Printing and circulating prior to an election:

"(1) Specimen ballots.

"(2) Handbills.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 1992).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Woodhead
741 P.2d 154 (California Supreme Court, 1987)
Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
763 P.2d 1326 (California Supreme Court, 1988)
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV
805 P.2d 873 (California Supreme Court, 1991)
Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission
743 P.2d 1323 (California Supreme Court, 1987)