Did Maryland political campaign treasurers in the 1980s have to record every small contribution raised through a fundraiser raffle or gaming wheel, not just the big checks?

Plain-English summary

The State Administrator of Election Laws asked the Attorney General whether campaign treasurers had to keep detailed records of every political contribution, and specifically whether that requirement covered money raised through raffle ticket sales or spins on a gaming wheel at a fundraising event. The question mattered because the General Assembly had recently authorized political committees to run raffles statewide and wheel games in Baltimore City and Baltimore County as fundraisers, activities that would otherwise have been illegal gambling.

The opinion concluded that Maryland's Fair Election Practices Act required a treasurer to record every contribution, regardless of size, including the contributor's name, address, and the amount and date given. Nothing in the statutes authorizing raffles and wheels excused compliance with that recordkeeping duty, even though the office recognized that individually tracking wheel-game contributions was awkward given how those games were traditionally played for cash on the spot. The office also concluded that committees which had already held wheel fundraisers in good-faith reliance on the new gambling authorization, and had simply logged a lump sum rather than individual contributions, should not be penalized for that past conduct, though all future events had to comply fully.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Under Maryland's old Fair Election Practices Act, did a campaign treasurer have to record small contributions the same as large ones?
Yes. The 1986 opinion concluded that treasurers had to record every contribution regardless of size, including the contributor's name, address, and the amount and date received.

Were raffle ticket sales and gaming-wheel spins at a political fundraiser treated as anonymous money, exempt from Maryland's recordkeeping law?
No. The opinion found no exception in the statute for proceeds from raffles or wheels; both had to be logged the same as any other contribution, and the state's separate ban on accepting anonymous contributions applied to unrecorded wheel proceeds as well.

What happened to Maryland political committees that had already run wheel fundraisers without recording individual contributions before this opinion was issued?
The Attorney General concluded that committees which, in good faith, relied on the General Assembly's new authorization for wheel games and simply recorded a lump sum should not be penalized retroactively, though every future event had to comply with the full recordkeeping requirement.

Background and statutory framework

Maryland's Fair Election Practices Act, Subtitle 26 of Article 33 of the Maryland Code, required the treasurer of every candidate or political committee to keep detailed account books recording each contribution's amount, date, and the contributor's name and address, with no dollar-amount exception stated in the recordkeeping provision itself (a nearby provision did carve out small-dollar exceptions for issuing receipts, underscoring that the recordkeeping duty itself had none). Separately, Article 27 of the Maryland Code created narrow exceptions to the state's gambling laws allowing raffles statewide and, as amended in 1986, "wheels of fortune" fundraisers in Baltimore City and Baltimore County.

The opinion reasoned that because the raffle and wheel statutes said nothing about excusing compliance with the Fair Election Practices Act's recordkeeping requirement, and because Maryland law disfavored reading a repeal of an existing statute into a later, unrelated one by implication, the recordkeeping duty applied in full to gambling-based fundraising. The office acknowledged this created a practical problem for wheel games, where a player's win or loss (and thus their net contribution) is not known until after the wheel is spun, making individual recordkeeping awkward without switching to a chip-based system. A 1986 bill that would have created a statutory exemption for anonymous wheel contributions under $1,500 per event failed in committee, so the office found no legislative fix in place at the time of the opinion. The opinion's own text notes that the General Assembly later enacted a substantially similar law in 1988.

Citations

Statutes:

• Article 33, §26-6(a), §26-4(a), §26-9(a), and §26-8(a) (contributions must pass through the treasurer)
• Article 33, §26-7(a) (treasurer's duty to record every contribution, with name, address, amount, and date)
• Article 33, §26-7(b)(1) (dollar-amount exceptions for issuing receipts, contrasted with the recordkeeping duty)
• Article 33, §26-7(c) (ban on using anonymous contributions for political purposes)
• Article 33, §1-1(a)(14) (definition of "political committee")
• Article 27, §261D and §261D(c) (statewide raffle authorization and its recordkeeping savings clause)
• Article 27, §261C (Baltimore City gaming-wheel fundraiser authorization)
• Article 27, §261C-1 (Baltimore County gaming-wheel fundraiser authorization)
• Chapter 154, Laws of Maryland 1986, and Chapter 52, Laws of Maryland 1986 (enacting the Baltimore County wheel provision)
• Chapter 598, Laws of Maryland 1988 (later law addressed in the opinion's Editor's Note)

Cases:

• Parker v. Junior Press Printing Serv., Inc., 266 Md. 721, 726 (1972)
• Prince George's County v. White, 275 Md. 314, 319 (1975)
• Board of Educ. v. Lendo, 295 Md. 55, 63 (1982)
• Haskell v. Carey, 294 Md. 550, 558 (1982)
• National Asphalt Pavement Ass'n v. Prince George's County, 292 Md. 75, 80 (1981)
• Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 657 (1976)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1986/Volume71_1986.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

Elections—Fair Election Practices Act—Contributions—Recordkeeping—Requirement That A Detailed Record Be Kept Of All Contributions Applies To The Proceeds Of Raffles And Gaming Wheels.

July 1, 1986

Mrs. Marie M. Garber
State Administrator of Election Laws

You have requested our opinion concerning the records that must be kept by recipients of political contributions. Specifically, you ask the following questions:

1. Is a treasurer required to maintain a record of every contribution, including the name and address of the contributor and the amount and date of the contribution, regardless of the size of the contribution?

2. If so, does this requirement apply to contributions in the form of purchased raffle chances or spins on a wheel used at a fundraising event?

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that a treasurer is legally required to maintain a record of every contribution, regardless of size. The record must contain the name and address of the contributor, the amount of the contribution, and the date of the contribution. There is no exception for contributions in the form of wagers on a raffle or a wheel. However, those who have already held political fundraisers at which the proceeds of wheels were simply recorded as lump sum contributions, in good faith reliance upon the General Assembly's authorization for the use of wheels, should not now be penalized for that reliance.

I
Recordkeeping Requirements

The Fair Election Practices Act, Subtitle 26 of Article 33 of the Maryland Code, is intended to "regulat[e] and control... campaign financing and to insure a system of centralized responsibility for campaign funds and expenditures." Parker v. Junior Press Printing Serv., Inc., 266 Md. 721, 726 (1972). To that end, the Act imposes a variety of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This office has described the Act's structure and purpose as follows:

"[I]ts overriding thrust is to control, and require the reporting of, contributions and expenditures of money and other valuable things made in connection with elections and to require that certain records be maintained with respect to all such contributions and expenditures. Put another way, the Fair Election Practices Act is intended to enable an interested person to 'audit' all campaign activities in connection with a given election and ascertain, by an examination of both publicly filed records and records required to be maintained by various organizations, all amounts of money and valuable things expended in connection with any given election campaign ..., the purposes for which they were expended and the sources of all such expenditures." 59 Opinions of the Attorney General 282, 293 (1974).

One means of achieving this objective is the Act's system of control for political contributions, in which the treasurer of each candidate or political committee plays a critical role: "All contributions, money or other valuable things collected, received or disbursed by any candidate or committee for any purpose, shall be paid over to and made to pass through the hands of the treasurer and ... shall be disbursed by him." Article 33, §26-6(a). See also Article 33, §26-4(a). Contributors may not make a contribution except to the treasurer or to the candidate, who "shall thereupon report such contribution to his treasurer." Article 33, §26-9(a). Even the candidate's own contributions "must pass through the hands of the candidate's treasurer and be reported as required in other provisions of [the Act]." Article 33, §26-8(a).

Every contribution, having gone to the treasurer, is then required by Article 33, §26-7(a) to be recorded in the treasurer's account books:

"Every treasurer and every subtreasurer shall keep detailed, full and accurate accounts in a proper book or books, to be called 'account books,' to be provided and preserved by him, of all contributions, money or valuable things received ... and setting forth in such statement and accounts the sum or valuable thing so received ... and the date when, the name of the person and his address from whom received ... and the object and purposes which the sum, or other valuable thing, was received."1

The language could not be clearer—"all contributions" are to be recorded with the name and address of the contributor and the date and the amount. No exception is stated.

The all-inclusive nature of this requirement is emphasized by the fact that in the very next subsection, which requires that campaign contribution receipts be issued by the treasurer, specific dollar amount exceptions are specified. Article 33, §26-7(b)(1).2

Thus, in general, the required record must be kept of every contribution, regardless of its amount. In Part III A below, we discuss the difficult problem of how this requirement is to be applied to the proceeds of gaming wheels.

II
Fundraising by Means of Gambling

Political entities are permitted, under certain circumstances, to engage in activities that would otherwise be illegal gambling. One such provision, Article 27, §261D, applies statewide and authorizes raffles:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any bona fide political committee, as defined in Article 33, §1-1(a)(14) of the Code, or candidate for public office may conduct a raffle from which prizes in the form of cash or merchandise are awarded.

(b) (1) The cost of a raffle ticket may not exceed $5.
(2) Any individual may not purchase more than $50 worth of tickets.

(c) The provisions of this section may not relieve any candidate or political committee from the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under Article 33 of the Code."

A second provision, Article 27, §261C (as amended by Chapter 154, Laws of Maryland 1986), authorizes political fundraising through the use of wheels in Baltimore City:

"(a) In Baltimore City, notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, any bona fide politically partisan organization as defined in Article 33 of this Code may conduct fund raising affairs at which merchandise or cash prizes may be awarded in any one game or spin by such devices commonly known as paddle wheels or wheels of fortune.

(b) The amount of any merchandise or cash prize award may not exceed the amount otherwise permitted in Baltimore City."

Finally, a newly enacted provision, Article 27, §261C-1, authorizes gaming wheels at political fundraisers in Baltimore County:

"(a) In Baltimore County, notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, any bona fide politically partisan organization or political committee as defined in Article 33 of the Code may conduct fund-raising affairs at which merchandise or cash prizes may be awarded in any one game or spin by such devices commonly known as paddle wheels or wheels of fortune.

(b) The amount of any merchandise or cash prize award may not exceed the amount otherwise permitted in Baltimore County."3

III
Gambling Proceeds

A. Recordkeeping

1. Raffles

With respect to the raffles permitted under Article 27, §261D, the recordkeeping requirements in Article 33, §26-7(a) unquestionably must be complied with. Article 27, §261D(c) expressly provides that "the reporting and recordkeeping requirements" of the Act are not excused by the authorization for raffles.

2. Wheels

The question is closer with regard to the wheel games permitted in Baltimore City and Baltimore County. Article 27, §§261C and 261C-1 authorize a gambling activity that would otherwise be prohibited. However, they do not say anything, one way or the other, about the previously enacted recordkeeping requirements of the Act. To read their silence as excusing compliance with the expressly all-encompassing recordkeeping requirement in Article 33, §26-7(a) would be inconsistent with the longstanding principle that repeals by implication are to be avoided. E.g., Prince George's County v. White, 275 Md. 314, 319 (1975). "[R]epeals not expressed will not be found unless demanded by irreconcilability or repugnancy." Board of Educ. v. Lendo, 295 Md. 55, 63 (1982). As the Court of Appeals has stated:

"[T]he applicable rules of statutory construction direct that when two statutes, enacted at different times, cover similar subject matter, but make no reference to each other, they should be construed, if at all feasible, so as to give as full effect to each other as possible. Moreover, if the statutes are not irreconcilable, they should be construed in harmony with their respective objects." Haskell v. Carey, 294 Md. 550, 558 (1982).

This construction of the Act—that it admits of no exception for gambling proceeds—has been consistently adopted by the State Administrative Board of Election Laws, based on advice from this office. See, e.g., Memorandum on Campaign Fund Reporting from State Administrative Board of Election Laws to Campaign Fund Accounts: Candidates, Chairmen, Treasurers (May, 1986). "The consistent construction by the agency responsible for administering a statute is entitled to considerable weight." National Asphalt Pavement Ass'n v. Prince George's County, 292 Md. 75, 80 (1981).

But compliance with Article 33, §26-7(a), although not impossible, would certainly require a significant change from the "cash on the table" way in which wheels have traditionally been operated. The main recordkeeping problem is that the amount of an individual's contribution is unknown until after the wheel is spun; if a player wins, he or she makes no contribution. The only way to keep track of individual contributions would be by replacing cash with chips, bought at the start of play and redeemed at the end, with records kept both times and then reconciled. This recordkeeping chore would undoubtedly be a strong disincentive to the conduct of the gaming authorized by Article 27, §§261C and 261C-1.

The problem can only be resolved through further legislation. House Bill 819, introduced in the 1986 Session, would have authorized political fundraising through wheels statewide. It would also have amended Article 33, §26-7 by adding the following subsection:

"(3) Notwithstanding any law or regulation that prohibits an anonymous contribution, a treasurer or subtreasurer may accept and is not required to identify in the account books each sum of money given by each individual who purchases a spin or chance on the paddle wheel or wheel of fortune at a campaign fund-raising event if:

(i) the net income to the sponsoring political committee or partisan organization from a paddle wheel or wheel of fortune does not exceed $1,500 in a 24-hour period at a single fund-raising event; and

(ii) the account books include the total net amount received and the names and addresses of the individuals who attend the fund-raising event at which the wheel is used."

The State Administrative Board of Election Laws advised the bill's sponsor that the bill was necessary "to exempt such contributions from separate and specific listing in the account books," because the Act "[n]ow requires that sum, name, address and date of every contribution be recorded." Memorandum from Administrator Marie M. Garber to Delegate Collins (Jan. 16, 1986). Similar advice was provided to the House Judiciary Committee, which reported the bill unfavorably despite the State Board's support for it.

Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the proceeds of gaming wheels are excused from the Act's recordkeeping requirements. Candidates planning future events of this kind must adhere to the requirements, notwithstanding the burden.

However, we also believe that those who have already held gaming events under the authority of Article 27, §§261C and 261C-1 and who in good faith concluded that they were thus authorized to conduct the event in the traditional way—using cash, without individual records—should not be subject to penalty. It would be utterly impossible, at this point, for them to establish a record of individual contributions. They should simply record and report the lump sum derived from the wheels.

B. Anonymous Contributions

A related difficulty is presented by the Act's prohibition on the use of anonymous contributions for political purposes:

"Any money or other thing of value received from any unknown person or source by any treasurer ... shall not be used for any political purpose whatsoever, but shall be paid by the treasurer ... to the Treasurer of the State of Maryland." Article 33, §26-7(c).

If, at the end of an evening of gambling, a treasurer has an undifferentiated sum of money with no record of who contributed or in what amount, that money can only be characterized as having been "received from ... unknown person[s]."

Again, the difficulty is that the General Assembly, having amended the gambling laws to authorize a form of fundraising in which anonymous contributions naturally follow from the traditional conduct of the games, did not amend Article 33, §26-7(c) to remove its impediment to those games. In our view, the same approach outlined in Part III A 2 above for the problem of recordkeeping is appropriate here: Those who, in good faith, have already held gaming events at which individual contributors cannot now be identified should not be penalized; however, future events must comply with Article 33, §26-7(c).

IV
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that:

1. A treasurer for a candidate, political committee, or partisan organization is required to maintain in his or her account books a record of every contribution, regardless of size. This record must include the name and address of the contributor and the amount and date of the contribution.

2. This recordkeeping requirement applies to contributions in the form of purchased raffle chances or spins on a wheel, where gambling activities are legal.4 However, those who have already held political fundraisers at which the proceeds of wheels were simply recorded as lump sum contributions, in good faith reliance upon the General Assembly's authorization for the use of wheels, should not now be penalized for that reliance.

Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General
Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice

Editor's Note: The General Assembly has enacted a law substantially similar to that discussed in Part III A of this opinion. Chapter 598, Laws of Maryland 1988.

1 This subsection imposes the same recordkeeping requirements for all expenditures.

2 A receipt need not be given for a contribution, other than the purchase of tickets, of less than $51. Cumulative ticket purchases of less than $251 likewise do not require a receipt. However, "upon request, a receipt must be given for any lesser amount."

3 This provision, introduced as Senate Bill 622, was enacted as an emergency bill and signed into law as Chapter 154 of the Laws of Maryland 1986. A parallel measure, House Bill 425, was also enacted. Chapter 52, Laws of Maryland 1986. See Bill Review Letter from Attorney General Sachs to Governor Hughes (April 7, 1986).

4 We do not address the applicability of the Act's requirements to contributions in the form of illegal gambling proceeds (e.g., wheels used in a jurisdiction other than Baltimore City or Baltimore County), except to observe that a treasurer who has engaged in that type of illegal conduct might have a right to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if a report form called for the disclosure of incriminatory information. See, e.g., Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 657 (1976).