CC_Minutes_2004_1115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets June 17, 2004 Page 2 of 5 The term "general 'welfare" is broadly and liberally interpreted in ordinances that are both regulatory and entirely local in scope. 1 A regulatory ordinance is one that controls an activity; as opposed to an ordinance that prohibits the activity all together. 2 An ordinance requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions is regulatory because it is a control on the receipt of campaign contributions. At a minimum, the scope of an ordinance is local when the effects of the ordinance do not extend outside the City limits.3 Since only residents of the City may hold City office,4 the scope of an ordinance requiring candidates for City office to disclose can1paign contIibutions is local because its effects are limited to those living within the City limits. Therefore, such an ordinance is regulatory and entirely local in scope. An ordinance that requires candidates for City office to disclose campaign contributions greater than $100 protects the ability of City residents to be infonned of the financing that supports a candidacy. The City Council has the power to adopt such an ordinance in providing for the good government and general welfare of the City. Effect of State Campaign Disclosure Requirements. A local ordinance is preempted when State law leaves no room for the local regulation. The Minnesota Election LawS states that candidates for public office must report contributions that, in the aggregate, are greater than $500 in a year. The question is whether this State law preempts a City requirement that candidates for City office disclose campaign contributions greater than $1 OO? The short ans\ver is: No. Local ordinances are preempted when a State law fully occupies the field on a subject so that there is no room for local regulation, even when the local regulation does not directly conflict with any provision of State law.6 Four factors are to be considered in determining when preemption applies. Those factors are: 1. What is the "subject matter" which is to be regulated? 2. Has the subject matter been so fully covered by state la\v as to have become solely a matter of state concern? 3. Has the legislature in partially regulating the subject matter indicated that it is a matter solely of state concern? I Village of Brooklyn Center v. Rippen, 96 N.W.2d 585 (Minn.1959); Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Jvfinnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1968). 2 State v. Stone, 572 N.S.2d 725, 729 (Minn. 1997) quoting California v. Cabazon Band of Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 209 (1987). 3 Rippen, Id.; In re Independent School District No. 38], in Lake County, 213 N.\V.2d 631,637-38 (Minn. 1973). 4 Minn. Stat. 9412.02. 5 Minnesota Statutes chapters 201, 202A, 203B, 204B, 204C, 204D, 205, 205A, 206, 208, 209, 21 lA, 211B, and 211C. 6 Mangold Midl1lest Co. v. Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813,819 (Minn. 1966).