Political Committee Major Purpose Test

Political Committees

The Campaign Finance Act, KSA 25-4142 et seq., sets rules for the financing of campaigns in Kansas. The Act applies to elections of the state, counties, cities of the first class, unified school districts with more than 35,000 pupils, and the board of public utilities of Kansas City, Kansas, but does not apply to other political subdivisions.

The Act defines a “political committee” as any combination of two or more individuals, or any person other than an individual, which has a major purpose to expressly advocate the nomination, election, or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for state or local office or make contributions to or expenditures for the nomination, election, or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for state or local office. The political committee does not include a candidate committee or party committee. Note: Political committees are also commonly known as “political action committees” or “PACs.”

Considerations for Determining a Political Committee

KAR 19-21-3 outlines the factors considered by the Governmental Ethics Commission (Commission) in determining if a combination of two or more persons, or a person other than an individual, is considered a political committee. These factors include:

• The intent of the person or persons;
• The time devoted to supporting or opposing candidates;
• Contributions and expenditures, as defined by the Act; and
• The importance of the activities of the person or persons to any candidate, candidate committee, party committee, or political committee.

Lastly, the regulation defines affiliated or connected organizations, detailing the criteria for when an organization is considered affiliated or connected with a reporting political committee.

Political Committee Requirements

The Act requires that political committees planning to receive contributions or make expenditures for a state office candidate must appoint a chairperson and treasurer. The chairperson must file a statement of organization with the Secretary of State within 10 days of the committee’s establishment. Political committees must pay a yearly registration fee to the Commission.

KSA 25-4147 directs treasurers for political committees to keep detailed accounts of all contributions and other receipts received and all expenditures made by or on behalf of the treasurer’s candidate or committee. Additionally, the treasurer must report the name and address of each candidate for state or local office who is the subject of an expenditure made without the cooperation or consent of a candidate or candidate committee.

Court Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

The “Major Purpose Test” was established in the U.S. Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In this case, the Court addressed the Major Purpose Test to determine whether an organization qualifies as a political committee under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Court ruled that the term “political committee” should only apply to organizations that are either controlled by candidates or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate. This definition differs from the law in Kansas, which defines political committees based on “a major purpose” instead of “the major purpose.”

Federal Circuit Courts

The federal circuit courts hold differing opinions on whether the Major Purpose Test is a constitutional limit that applies to state laws or if it is simply a matter of statutory interpretation and therefore not relevant to state disclosure regulation. (See more: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2015/iss1/16) Earlier this year, a District Judge in Kansas City, Kansas, opined the Tenth Circuit precedent establishes that Buckley’s Major Purpose Test applies to a state’s regulation of political committees, meaning the use of “a” instead of “the.” Furthermore, according to Buckley’s text, Kansas’ statutory definition of a “political committee” could be considered unconstitutionally broad. The Fourth Circuit has also adopted this interpretation. Note: As of October 2024, the full merits of the case are yet to be decided.

The First, Seventh, and Ninth circuits have rejected this interpretation and have not applied Buckley’s Major Purpose Test to state regulation of political committees. In Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan (2012), the Seventh Circuit held that the “Major Purpose” limitation in Buckley “was a creature of statutory interpretation, not constitutional command” and thus not applicable to a state’s regulation of political committees.