2004_1122_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets June 17,2004 Page 3 of 5 4. Is the subj ect matter itself of such a nature that local regulation would have unreasonably adverse effects upon the general populace of the �#�t��?� The subj ect matter of a City ordinance requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions is the financing of campaigns for City office. Minnesota law requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions does not focus exclusively on municipal elections. Instead it applies to candidates for all offices in the State. It requires candidates to report the name of the individual or committee that durin� the year makes campaign contributions that in the aggregate are equal to or greater than $500. That statute also provides a time frame for filing the required reports. While the statutory reporting requirements are extensive, there is no clear statement that the statute is meant to exclude local regulations. Statutes and ordinances on the same subj ect must be presumed to be coexistent unless the legislature clearly states its preemptive i ��nt,� The language and requirements of the State law do not indicate that the regulation of campaign contributions for local elections is exclusively a matter of state concern. In fact, the statute states that its reporting provisions are in addition to the provisions of any municipal �� „io charter requiring the filing of reports in connection with a municipal [election]. This explicit statement is an indication by the legislature that campaign finance reporting for local elections is not a matter solely of state concern. And recognition that there can be a patchwork of different local government reporting requirements. Because State law references charter cities but not statutory cities, it could be argued that this provision allows only charter cities to adopt additional reporting requirements. Such an argument does not address preemption. Because there is not an express statement that the state law preempts a local ordinance, the preemption factors listed above must be considered. In applying those factors, the focus is whether the subject is a matter solely of state concern. In that light, the statute's provision regarding municipal charter requirements must be read only as it relates to whether campaign filling reports are only a state concern. By allowing for individual city reporting requirements the provision is a clear statement that it is not a matter solely of state concern. There are no clear factors to consider when determining if state law fully occupies a field. Determinations of the issue are therefore difficult and can seem subjective. An example of this is seen in a comparison of the cases of Board of Supervisors v. ��,� ��'�r r� and Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township. i� Each of these cases involved local ' Id. at 820. $ Minn,Stat. §211A.02, subd. 2. � State v. Dailey, 169 N.W2d 746,748 (Minn.1969). 'o Minn.Stat. §211A.02, subd. 3. ti 504 N.W.2d 267 (Minn.App.1993), review denied. �' S81 N.W.2d 391, (Minn.App.1998).