Alabama Advisory Opinions January 29, 1996: AGO 1996-114 (January 29, 1996)
Collection: Alabama Attorney General Opinions
Docket: AGO 1996-114
Date: Jan. 29, 1996
Advisory Opinion Text
AGO 1996-114.
State Auditor
State of Alabama
The State Capitol
Montgomery, AL 36130
Dear Ms. Duncan:
This opinion is issued in response to your request for an opinion from the Attorney General.
QUESTIONWhat impact does the right to free speech guaranteed by the federal and Alabama constitutions have on Section 17-22A-7 (b)'s prohibition of a candidate's contribution of his or her own funds to his or her own principal campaign committee during a legislative session?
FACTS AND ANALYSISIn an opinion to you dated July 17, 1995, A.G. No. 95-00263, this office responded to your request concerning an interpretation of Code of Alabama 1975, § 17-22A-7 (b). That opinion states that the "plain language of § 17-22A-7 (b) prohibits a candidate for state office from contributing his/her own money to the candidate's principal campaign committee during a legislative session." This request asks that we address the impact of the right to free speech guarantees on the ability of a candidate for state office to make contributions to his or her own principal campaign committee during a legislative session.
We recognize that the federal courts have invalidated certain election laws that limit a candidate's use of his or her own funds to support his or her political speech. See, e.q., Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin , 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995). In addition, Mills v. Alabama , 384 U.S. 214 (1966), held an Alabama election statute's one-day restriction on the advocacy of a ballot proposition to violate the First Amendment.
Nevertheless, the Alabama Supreme Court has held that all statutes are presumed to be constitutionally valid and the party challenging its constitutionality has the burden of establishing its invalidity. Jefferson County Bd. of Health v. City of Bessemer , 301 So.2d 551 (Ala. 1974). Accordingly, it is the policy of this office to defer questions of the constitutionality of statutes to the courts, and therefore, we must respectfully decline to address your question.
CONCLUSIONBased on a longstanding policy, this office does not address the constitutionality of statutes as this is not the purpose of an Attorney General's opinion but is a matter for the courts.
If our office can be of further assistance, please contact Brenda F. Smith of my staff.
Sincerely,
JEFF SESSIONS
Attorney General
By: JAMES R. SOLOMON, JR.
Chief, Opinions Division
JS/BFS
D1/12.95/f