Judges: JOSEPH CONWAY, Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 9/22/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Linda Riley, Esq. Informal Opinion Town Attorney No. 95-46 Town of Southampton Town Hall 116 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968
Dear Ms. Riley:
You inquire whether the Election Law preempts enactment of town regulations which would prohibit the award of municipal contracts to persons who have made political contributions to town officials or candidates for town office. As part of your inquiry, you have transmitted to us for review a proposed amendment to the Southampton Town Code. Specifically, the proposed amendment would preclude the awarding of town contracts worth more than $1,500 to people who have made political campaign contributions of more than $100 to town officials or candidates for town office.
As a general policy, we do not review the details of proposed local enactments, since these matters are appropriately reserved for consideration by local officials familiar with local conditions and legislative intent. However, we do advise local governments whether under State law they possess the authority to enact measures dealing with various subjects.
We conclude that the proposed Southampton regulations are both inconsistent with and preempted by the State Election Law. Furthermore, in light of the specific provisions of the Election Law governing campaign contributions, the general provisions of General Municipal Law §
Article IX of the New York State Constitution establishes the principles of home rule. N Y Const Art
While the above authorization encompasses your proposed local law, there are limitations on this grant of authority. First, a municipality may not adopt local laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution or general State laws. N Y Const Art
Second, a municipality may not adopt local laws where the Legislature has expressed an intent to preempt local legislation with respect to a given subject. Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v County of Suffolk,
It is evident from the comprehensive nature of the Election Law that the State intended to occupy fully the area of campaign contribution limits, leaving no room for additional local regulation. Article 14 provides for detailed reporting and disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures and establishes individual contribution limits. These limits are designed to apply to elections for party positions and to elections for and nominations for all public offices, including those at the local level. N Y Election Law §§
While the focus of your proposed law is the ethics of local officials, its establishment of campaign contribution limits for those entering into contracts of a certain amount with the town brings it within the subject area preempted by Election Law Article 14. The proposed local regulations are inconsistent with this preemptive State scheme. They do not permit certain contributors to make the maximum contribution permitted by the Election Law. The caps set by Article 14 are the product of a myriad of considerations such as free speech and freedom of association. See, Friedlander, et al., "The New York City Campaign Finance Act," 16 Hofstra L Rev 345, 349 (1988). Under Article 14, only the State Board of Elections may modify contribution caps, in accordance with standards set by the State Legislature. See, Election Law §§
Alternately, you suggest that your proposed regulation is authorized by General Municipal Law section
We conclude that the proposed regulations are both inconsistent with and preempted by Election Law Article 14. Furthermore, General Municipal Law section
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH CONWAY
Assistant Attorney General
People v. De Jesus , 54 N.Y.2d 465 ( 1981 )
New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New York , 69 N.Y.2d 211 ( 1987 )
Dougal v. County of Suffolk , 102 A.D.2d 531 ( 1984 )
Incorporated Village of Nyack v. Daytop Village, Inc. , 78 N.Y.2d 500 ( 1991 )
Vatore v. Consumer Affairs , 83 N.Y.2d 645 ( 1994 )
Levine v. Bornstein , 4 N.Y.2d 241 ( 1958 )
Wholesale Laundry Bd. v. City of NY , 17 A.D.2d 327 ( 1962 )
New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York , 108 S. Ct. 2225 ( 1988 )
Jancyn Manufacturing Corp. v. County of Suffolk , 583 F. Supp. 1364 ( 1984 )