Could South Carolina candidates return an unneeded caucus donation without making a new contribution?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether candidates who had received a total of $4,500 from a legislative caucus committee could return the entire amount because they did not need it. The 2000 AG opinion said that return was not a new contribution to the committee on the facts described. The statute's definition of “contribution” required value given to influence an election; the candidates simply returned money that had been lawfully given to them, without earmarking it for any race or use.

The AG ordinarily would have deferred an ethics question to the Senate Ethics Committee, but answered here because the requester chaired that committee and a response from it could raise an apparent conflict. The letter did not address a partial return, an earmarked transfer, or money that had been unlawfully received in the first place.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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

Q: Did returning the full donation count against the candidate as a new contribution?
A: The AG said no on the stated facts. The return was not meant to influence an election.

Q: Did it matter that the money went back to a caucus committee?
A: The opinion reasoned that the committee could use the returned sum for any valid purpose; the candidates made no earmark for a particular campaign.

Q: Did the opinion cover returning an illegal or earmarked payment?
A: No. It expressly described an entire return of money originally given lawfully, with no designated election use.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared a limit on contributions to committees with the statute's definition of a contribution as value given to influence an election. It distinguished a true contribution from undoing a lawful payment the candidates did not need.

Citations and references

• Section 8-13-1322(A), the committee contribution limit discussed in the letter.

Official title

Concerning candidates that have received donations from a legislative caucus committee on two different dates, during an election cycle that total $4,500.

Requester

The Honorable Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-10-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00aug10leatherman.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE of SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARl.lE CoNDON
ATl'ORNBY OENBRAL

Office of the Attorney General
Columbia 29211

August 10, 2000

By Facsimile
The Honorable Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.
1817 Pineland Avenue
Florence, South Carolina 29501
Dear Senator Leatherman:
You have asked for an opinion conceming the following situation:
[s]everal candidates have received donations from a legislative caucus committee on two different dates, during an election cycle that total $4,500. These candidates have determined that they do not need the donations and wish to return the entire amount to the legislative caucus. Is there any section in the Ethics, Government Accountability, and Reform Act or any other law that you know of prohibiting the return of these campaign contributions by those candidates to the contributor. Law/Analysis Typically, this would be a question for the Senate Ethics Committee and, under normal circumstances, we would defer to that Committee. However, you have advised that you are Chairman of that Committee, and there could be an obvious conflict of interest by the Committee's response. Therefore, in this unusual and pressing circumstance, we will provide you with an advisory opinion. There are several provisions of the Ethics Act whlch are relevant to your inquiry. S.C. Code Annotated Section 8-13-1322(A) prohibits any person from contributing ''to a committee and a committee may not accept from a person contributions aggregating more than three thousand five hundred dollars in a calendar year." On the other hand, §8-I 3-l 3 l 6(A) provides that within an election cycle, a candidate may not accep~ or receive contributions from a political

(803) 734-3970

(803) 734·3346 Facsimile

party through its party committees or legislative caucus conunittees which total in the aggregate more than : ( 1) fifty thousand dollars in the "a;:; e oi a candidate for statewide office; (2) five thousand dollars in the case of a candidate for any other office. In the situation which you have outlined, the question is whether the return of the money to the legislative caucus committee is a "contribution" in the amount of more than $3,500 in violation of §8-13-22(A). In our opinion, it is not.

Section 8~13-1300(7) defines the term "contribution" in pertinent part as "a gift, subscription, loan, guarantee upon which collection is made, forgiveness of a loan, in advance, in-kind contribution, expenditure, a deposit of money, or anything of value made to a candidate or committee to influence an election.... ,"(emphasis added). A simple return of the money in its entirety, which was legally given to the candidate in the manner you have described, is not a "contribution" because it is not intended to "influence an election." As you have outlined, the money is returned in whole simply because it is not needed. No earmarking for expenditure on a particular race or election is made. As far as the candidate returning the money is concerned, the sum could be used by the committee for any valid purpose. In our view, the mere return of money which was legally give in the first place cannot be made illegal by that return.

Moreover, common sense dictates that candidates do not typically contribute to legislative caucus committees. The candidate is usually looking for money from a committee not seeking to contribute to that committee. It defies all logic to think that simply by returning to a committee what was contributed by it to the candidate because it is not needed, one is himself making a "contribution" to that committee. Accordingly, in our opinion, the circumstances you describe do not constitute a "contribution" for purposes of §8-13· 1322(A) and thus the $3,5000 limitation is not applicable. In other words, there is no violation of the Ethics Act here.

Attorney General