Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
19-1001
| Cal. Att'y Gen. | Apr 1, 2022Background
- The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) enforces the Political Reform Act, which includes Government Code §83105 restricting Commissioners from partisan activities, including to “participate in or contribute to an election campaign.”
- The Act defines “election” as “any primary, general, special or recall election held in this state,” and California general elections include federal contests for President and Congress.
- The FPPC’s Commissioner manual has long interpreted §83105 to bar contributions to presidential and other federal candidates when the election is held in California, but the Commission briefly suspended that rule and requested an Attorney General opinion.
- The Attorney General applied standard interpretive tools (text, history, purpose) to determine whether the phrase “an election campaign” encompasses federal elections held in the State.
- The AG concluded §83105’s ban covers federal elections held in California: the Act’s defined term “election” plainly includes federal contests, no contrary context or special definition appears in §83105, and prior statutory amendments do not impliedly remove federal elections from the ban.
- The opinion emphasized that applying the ban to federal contests furthers the Act’s purpose of impartial, nonpartisan enforcement (e.g., avoiding Commissioners contributing to individuals or entities the Commission may later investigate or regulate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code §83105’s ban on participating in or contributing to “an election campaign” covers campaigns for President and Congress held in California | FPPC/requestor: the ban should not be read to cover federal elections (arguing context, historical amendments, or preemption undercut that application) | Attorney General: the Act defines “election” to include any election held in California (including federal); §83105 uses that term without exception; implied amendment and preemption arguments are unpersuasive | The ban applies to federal elections held in California, including President and Congressional races |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. City of Fontana, 25 Cal.4th 268 (Cal. 2001) (statutory interpretation principles govern initiative measures)
- Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd., 9 Cal.4th 263 (Cal. 1994) (courts will not interpret clear statutory language away)
- People v. Snyder, 22 Cal.4th 304 (Cal. 2000) (ballot arguments can aid interpretation of initiative measures)
- Environmental Protection Information Ctr. v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Prot., 44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008) (implied amendments are disfavored)
- Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1990) (principles limiting implied amendments)
- Huening v. Eu, 231 Cal.App.3d 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (Act’s amendment limits apply to implied amendments)