Could a South Carolina city Democratic club give leftover primary funds to the county party in 1995?

Official title

Advising that the Clinton County Democratic Club formerly ran the city democratic primaries, but since the primaries are now state-run, there is no longer a need for the Club. The Club currently has a small amount of money left in its account and would like to know if it can donate these funds to the Laurens County Democratic Party.

Requester

The Honorable James E. Bryan, Jr., Senator, District No. 9

Plain-English summary

A city Democratic club asked whether it could donate money left from running local primaries to the Laurens County Democratic Party. The 1995 informal opinion said the donation could be permissible if the club or party had no contrary rule and the club found the contribution advanced legitimate party aims. It relied on a South Carolina Supreme Court decision treating candidate filing fees paid to a party as party property available for party purposes.

The letter expressly assumed the club’s legal form and that the money came from filing fees. It had not reviewed bylaws or party rules, so its conclusion was conditional rather than a blanket authorization.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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: Could the club donate remaining filing-fee money to the county party? A: The letter said yes if governing rules did not forbid it and the club determined the gift advanced legitimate party purposes.

Q: Did candidates retain ownership of the fees?
A: The court decision discussed in the letter treated paid filing fees as party property, not as funds limited to the candidates’ county.

Q: Did the AG review the club’s bylaws?
A: No. The opinion expressly said it had not examined club or party rules.

Background and statutory framework

The request followed a change to state-run city primaries. The letter assumed the club was organized under §7-9-30 and the funds came from fees under §7-11-410, then applied Drummond v. Townes to the proposed party contribution.

Citations and references

• §7-9-30 and §7-11-410, identified as assumptions in the letter
• Drummond v. Townes

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-7-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug7bryan.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
[

CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 7, 1995

L

I
I

The Honorable James E. Bryan, Jr.
Senator, District No. 9
Post Office Box 756
Laurens, South Carolina 29360
RE: Informal Opinion

r

Dear Senator Bryan:

D

I

L
I

r

By your letter of June 28, 1995, you have sought an opinion on the following subject. You have advised that the Clinton City Democratic Club formerly ran the city democratic primaries, but since the primaries are now state-run, there is no longer a need for the Club. The Club currently has a small amount of money left in its account and would like to know if it can donate these funds to the Laurens County Democratic Party. At the outset, it is assumed that the Clinton City Democratic Club was formed pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §7-9-30 (1976 & 1994 Cum. Supp.). It is further assumed that the funds referred to were derived from filing fees assessed of candidates pursuant to §7-11-410. Finally, only statutes and judicial decisions were taken into account in preparing a response to your inquiry; no bylaws or rules of the City Club or the county or state Democratic party organizations have been examined. It is observed that state law does not provide an answer to your inquiry. A decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, is most instructive, however. In Drummond v. Townes, 169 S.C. 396, 169 S.E. 81 (1933), a county Democratic Executive Committee contributed the sum of $1,000.00 to the National Democratic party. The plaintiffs who sought to enjoin the payment of the check were candidates for elective office who had paid filing fees to the county party for the primary election; they tried to argue that the fees paid by them as candidates were trust funds, that the county Executive Committee members (defendants) were trustees, and that the funds could be expended REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFACE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable James E. Bryan, Jr.
Page 2
August 7, 1995
only for campaign purposes only in that county. The lower court held that the county executive committee had ample authority to make the contribution to the National Committee, as such would be a party purpose. The Supreme Court concurred in the lower court's findings and conclusions and stated further as to the argument that the funds were a trust fund and that the defendants were trustees:

I
I

Let us, for the sake only of the argument, accept this postulate; where do the appellants stand in relation to it? Clearly they are not beneficiaries of the trust. They paid their money into the committee under the rule of the Democratic party, for the privilege of becoming candidates for office in the primary election of that party. They need not have done so; they could have stayed out of the primary and become candidates in the general election. But they elected to be candidates in the Democratic primary, and the party required them to pay, as a condition of their entry, the several swns fixed. When they did this, the money became the property of the party to be expended by its executive committee for party purposes, including the expenses of conducting the primary election, and, we venture to assert, for any purposes which furthered and advanced the legitimate aims and objects of the Democratic party. It is not a sound proposition that the funds in the hands of this committee can only be expended for the benefit of the party in Greenville County. The Democratic party in Greenville County is an integral part of the Democratic party in the State of South Carolina, which is a component part of the National Democratic party.... Id., 169 S.C. at 398-399. Applying the principles of this decision to your question, I am of the opinion that the Clinton City Democratic Club would be an integral part of the larger Democratic party organization in the State of South Carolina. Once the filing fees or assessments were paid into the party as a condition of becoming a candidate for elective office in the party primaries, the fees or assessments became property of the party to be expended for party purposes. According to Drummond v. Townes, supra, it would appear to be appropriate to expend such funds for any purpose which would further and advance the legitimate aims and objects of the Democratic party. Assuming that there is no rule or bylaw of the Clinton City Democratic Club or the State Democratic Party to the contrary, I am of the opinion that the City Democratic Club, through its members or appropriate committee, could make a determination that such a contribution of its funds to the Laurens County Democratic Party would further and

The Honorable James E. Bryan, Jr.
Page 3
August 7, 1995
advance the legitimate aims and objects of the County Democratic Party; in such a case, I am of the opinion that the contribution would therefore be permissible.

[

L

I
I

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I trust that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry and that you will advise if clarification or additional assistance should be needed. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General

i
l
I
r
i