### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00783- CV

Appellan t, Re pub lican Gover nors Association // Cross-Appellan t, Chris Bell

v. Appellee, Chris Bell // Cross-Appellee, Re pub lican Gover nors Association

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 261 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 7-0 0395 5, H ONO RAB LE JO HN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESI DING

O P I N I O N

These cross appea ls conce rn alleg ed Election Code violations during the 2006 Texas g uberna torial elec tion. Appellee Chris Be ll sued appellant Republican Gover n o rs As s ociation (RGA), seeking statutory damag es based on RGA’s two contributions o f $500,000 to Gover nor Rick Perry ’s political committee, Texans for Rick Perry

. See Tex. Elec. Code §§ 253.131, 254.231. After a bench trial, the trial c ourt rende red judgment in Be ll’s favor and is sued findings of fac t an d co n cl u s i o n s of law that RGA violated the Election Code when it made the disputed contributions beca

use it failed to (i) file a campa ign trea surer appointment, (ii) file a repor t showing its contributions and ex penditures, and (iii) provide a donor list to Tex ans for Rick Perry that was in compliance with the Election Code. See id

. §§ 253.032, 253.037, 254.1581. I n its final judgme nt, the trial cour

t ordere d RGA to pay

Be ll $2,000,000—twice the amount of the c ontributions—plus attorney ’s fe es and c osts. See id . §§ 253.131, 254.231.On appea l, RGA contends that the trial court err ed by holding it liable for the alleg ed

Election Code violations. I t arg ues that the Elec t i on Code does not require it, an out-of-state political c ommitt ee, to f

ile a campa ign trea surer appointment or a repor t show ing its c ontributions and expenditures with the Texas Ethics Co m mission (TEC), the Fe dera l Election Commi ssion (F EC), or other state filing authorities. I t also arg ues that section 253.032, the section of the Election Code co n ce rn i n g t h e d o n or list, does not apply to it. See id

. § 253.032. Be ll contends on cross appea l that the trial court err ed by not awa rding him an additional $2,000,000 in statutory damag es. For the rea sons that follow, we reve rse the trial court’s j u d gm en t, rende r judgme nt that Be ll take nothing, and rema

nd the case to the trial court for the limit ed purpose of deter mining whether to

awa rd attorne y ’s fe es to RGA.

BACK GR OUND Election Code P rovisions

We beg in with a brief overvie w of rele vant provisions in chapte rs 251 to 254 of the Election Code. Those chapte rs are within Title 15, which reg ulates political funds and campa igns. Chapter 251 provides g ener al provisions such as d ef i n itions, chapte r 252 addre sses campa ign
trea surer s, chapte r 253 addre sses restric tions on political contribut i o n s an d expenditures, and chapte r 254 addr esses re cord- keeping and re porting require ments.

Chapter 251 contains definitions for a “p olitical committee,” “g ener al-purpose committee,” “spec ific-pur pose committee,” and “out-of- state political committee.” Tex. Elec. Code § 251.001(12)–( 15). Section 251.001(12) define s a “political committee” as “a g roup of persons that

2has as a principal purpose acc epting political contributions or m aking political expenditures.” Id

.

§ 251.001(12). “ Gene ral-pur pose committee” is defined to mea n: a political committee that has a mong its principa l purposes: (A) supporting or

opposing: (i) two or more ca n d i d ates who are unidentified or are seeking office s that are unknown; or (ii) one or more measure s that are unidentified; or (B ) assisting two or mor e off iceholder s who are unidentified.

Id . § 251.001(14). An “out-of -state political committee” is defined to mea n: 1 a political committee that: (A) makes political expenditures outside this state; and

I n contra st to a g ener al-purpose committee, a “spec ific-pur pose committee” is define d 1 to mean:

a political committee that does not have among its principal purposes those of a g ener al-purpose committee but does have among its principal purposes: (A) supporting or

opposing one or more: (i) candida tes, all of whom are identified and are seeking office s that are known; or (ii) measure s, all of which a re ide ntified; (B ) assisting one or more of fice holders, all of w hom are identified; or (C) supporting or opposing only one candida te wh o is unidentified or who is seeking an off

ice that is unknown. Tex. Elec. Code § 251.001(13)

. 3(B ) in the 12 months immediately prec eding the making of a political expenditure by the committee inside t h i s state (other than an expenditure made in conne ct i o n wi th a campa ign for a fede ral office or made for a fede ral office holder), makes 80 perc ent o r more of the committee’s total political expenditures in any combination of elec tio n s o utside this state and fede ral office s not voted on in this s tate.

Id . § 251.001(15).

Section 251.005 expressly exempts out-of-state poli t i ca l committees from being subject to cha

pters 252 and 254 e x cept a s otherwise pr ovided in that section. Id . § 251.005. I f an out-of-state political committee voluntarily chooses to file a campa ign trea surer appointment under chapte r 252, the committee “bec omes subject to this title [titl e 15] to the same extent as a political committee that is not an out-of-state committee.” Id

. § 2 5 1

. 005(b). An out-of-state political committee also “bec omes subject t o this title [t itle 15] to the same e x tent as a political committee
t h at i s not an out-of-state committee” if the committee “per forms an activity that remove s th e committee from out-of-state status as define d by Section 251.001(15).” Id

. § 251.005(c) ; see id

. § 251.001(15). Fur

ther, “[a]n out-of-state political committee that does not file a campa ign trea surer appointment shall comply with [t he repor ting require ments of] Section 254.1581.” Id

. § 251.005(d). Chapter 252 provides statutory instructions for how and wher e to file ca m p ai gn trea surer appointments, such as the content of the appointment and the specific authority with whom the appointment should be filed. See generally id

. §§ 252.001–.015. A g ener al-purpose committee must file its campaig n trea surer appointment with the TEC. Id . § 252.009. Chapter 253 addre sses restric tions on contributions and expenditures. See generally id

. §§ 253.001–.176. Section 253.031 restric ts contributions and expenditures by candidates or

4p o l itical committees without a campa ign trea surer appointment on file. See id

. § 253.0 3 1

. I t 2 expressly states that it does not apply to an out-of- state political committee unless “the committee is subject to Cha

pter 252 under Section 251.005.” See id. § 253.031(e)

. The next sever al sections in chapte r 253 place additional limit s and restric tions on contributions and expenditures, expressly delineating who is subjec t to the pa rticular limitation or restric tion. For example, se ction 253.032 restric ts the acc eptanc e of political contributions exceeding $500 by candida tes, office holders, and political committees from out-of-state political committees. Id

. § 253.032. Section 253.037 place s further restric tions on g ener al-purpose committees, prohibiting contributions and expenditures until 6 0 d ay s af

t er they file t heir campaig n trea surer appointment. See id

. § 253.037. Section 253.131 authorizes civil liability and statutory damag es to opposing candida tes for violations of chapte r 253. See id

. § 253.131. Secti o n 2 5 3

. 1 3 1 (a ) states: “A person who knowing ly makes or acc epts a

Section 253.031, titled “Contribution and Ex penditure Wit hout Cam p ai gn Trea surer 2 Prohibited,” states in rele vant par t: (b) A political committee may not knowing ly accept political contributions totaling more than $500 or make or authorize political expenditures totaling more than $500 at a time when a campa ign trea surer appointment for the committee is not in effe ct. (c) A political co m mittee may not knowing ly make or authorize a campa ign contribution or campa ign expenditure supporting or opposing a candida te for an office specifie d b y S ec t i o n 252.005(1) in a primary or g ener al elec tion unless the com m i t t ee’ s campa ign trea surer appointment has been filed not later tha n the 30th day

befor e the a

ppropriate elec tion day

.

. . . . (e) This section does not apply to an out-of-state political c ommitt ee unless the committee is subject to Chapter 252 unde r Section 251.005. Tex. Elec. Code § 253.031. 5campai gn contribution or makes a campa ign expenditure in violation of this chapte r is liable for

damag es as pr ovided by

this section.” Id . § 253.131. The subchapte rs of chapte r 254 addre ss rec ord-ke eping and repor ting g ener ally and specific ally as to candida tes, office holders, g ener al-purpose committees, and specific -purpose committees. See generally id

. §§ 254.001–.232. Although out-of-state political committees

are exempt from ch apter 254 g ener ally , section 254.1581, which is within the subchapte r on g ener al-purpose committees, presc ribes repor ting require ments f

o r o u t- o f

- s ta te p o li ti c a l c o mmitt ees. See id . § 254.1581. There is also a civil liability provision in chapter

254, which states:

A candida te o r ca m p aig n trea surer or assistant campa ign trea surer of a political committee who fails to repor t in whole or in part a campa ign contribut i o n or campa ign e x penditure a s require d by this chapter is liable f

or dama g es as pr ovided by this section.

See id . § 254.231(a) . Wit h this statutory fra mework in mind, we turn to the pa rties’ dispute.

The Par ties’ D ispu te

Chris Be ll was the democr atic nominee for Texas g overnor in 2006 and was running ag ainst Rick Perry

. Gover nor Perry financ ed his g uberna torial campa ign throug h a Texas political committee called Texans for Rick Perry

. See id

. § 251.001(12) (def ining “political committee”)

. RGA sent two $500,000 chec ks to Texans for Rick Perry , one in October 2006 and the other one on November 1, 2006. At that time, RGA was not reg istere d as a poli tical commi ttee with the TEC , the FEC, or any state filing authority and had not filed repor ts or a campa ign trea surer appointment with the TEC, the FEC, or any state filing authority

. RGA was a “political org anizat i on” under

6section 527 of the I nterna l Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 527. I t filed repor ts of its contributions and expenditures with the I RS, and the I RS post ed copie s of the re ports on its website.

After the elec tion, Be ll filed this lawsuit, seeking statutory damag es based on RGA’s alleg ed violations of the Election Code. See Tex. Elec. Code §§ 253.131, 254.231. He alleg ed that 3 RGA violated sections 253.032 and 253.037 by contributing $1,000,000 to a T ex as p o l i t ical committee without having appointed a campa ign trea surer and without supply ing the Texas political committee with a complete donor list. See id

. §§ 251.001(14) (def ining “g ener al-purpose committee”) , 253.032 (limiti ng acc eptanc e of contributions from out-of-state political committees), 253.037 (re stricting contributions or expenditures by g ener al-purpose committees). He also alleg ed that RGA failed to comply with the repor ting require men ts for out-of-state political committees in section 254.1581. See id

. § 254.1581 (re porting require ments for out-o f-state political committees). RGA denied Be ll’s claims and fi l ed a counter claim for attorney ’s fee s. See id. §§ 253.131(e) , 254.231(d).

During trial, the parties submitt ed testim o n ia l, d o c u me n ta r y , and stipulation evidenc e to the trial court. The trial court there afte r rende red final judgme nt in Be ll’s favor on his claims aga i n s t RGA and enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. The trial court conclude d t h at RGA was both a g ener al-purpose and an out-of-state political committee and that it had viol ated sections 253.032, 253.037, and 254.1581 of the Election Code when it made its contributions to

Be ll also sued T ex ans for Rick Perry and Dr. Richard Box, the campa ign trea surer of 3 Texans for Rick Perry

. Be fore the bench trial, Be ll, Texans for Rick Perry , and Box notified the trial court that they had resolved thei r d i spute. Acc ording ly , the trial court dismiss ed Be ll’s claims ag ainst Texans for Rick Perry and B ox with prejudice

.

7Texans for Rick Perry

. See id

. §§ 253.032, 253.037, 254.1581. Ba sed on these violations, the trial 4
court awa rded Be ll $2,000,000 in statutory damag es, plus costs and attorney ’s fee s throug h trial and on appea l. See id . §§ 253.131, 254.231. These c ross appe als followed.

ANALYSIS I n three issues, RGA challeng es the trial court’s holdings that RGA violated Election Code provisions at the time that it made the two $500,000 contributions to Texans for Rick Perr y . RGA contends that the plain lang uag e of section 253.037 did not require it to file a campa ign
trea surer appointment, the plain lang uag e of section 253.032 did not apply to it beca use that section expressly applies only to the rec ipient of political contributions, and section 254.1581 did not apply
to it b ec ause the FEC and other state filing authorities did not require RGA to file repor ts of its exp en d i t u res and contributions with them in the first instance. See id. §§ 253.032, 253.037, 254.1581.

Be ll raises one issue on cro s s appea l. He contends that the trial court should have

awa rded $2,000,000 in sta tutory damag es pursuant to se ction 253.131 and $2,000,000 in sta tutory damag es pursuant to sec t i o n 2 5 4 .231 for a total damag es awa rd of $4,000,000. See id

. §§ 253.131, 254.231.

The fi n al j u dg ment ref

ers to section 253.002 instead of section 253.032, but the parties 4 ag ree that section 253.032 is the sec tion at issue. 8Stand ard of Review The parties’ is sues c o n ce rn statutory construction. We revie w m atters of statutory construction de novo. See Texas Mun. Power Agenc y v. Public Util. Comm’n , 253 S.W .3d 184, 192 (Tex. 2007). Of primary conce rn in const ru i n g a statute is the express statutory lang uag e. See Galbraith Eng’g Consultant s, Inc. v. Pochuc ha , 290 S.W .3d 863, 867 (Tex. 2009); Osterberg

v. Pec a , 12 S.W .3d 31 , 3 8 (T ex . 2000). “We thus construe the text acc ording to its plain and

common meaning unless a contra ry intention is apparent from the context or unless such a construction leads to absurd results.” Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott , 309 S.W .3d 927, 930 (Tex. 2010) (citing City of Rock wall v. Hughes , 246 S.W .3d 621, 625–26 (Tex. 2008)). We consider the entire a ct, not isolated portions. 20801, Inc. v . Parker , 249 S.W .3d 392, 396 (Tex. 2008).

RG A’s Issues i) Section 253.037

I n its first issue, RGA contends that the trial c ourt err ed by holding it liable t o Be ll for violating section 253.037. See Tex. Elec. Code § 253.037. Among other things, section 253.037, titled “Restrictions on Contribution or Ex penditure by Gene ral-Purpose Co m m i t t ee,” prohibits a g ener al-purpose committee from knowing ly making or authorizing a p o l i t ical contribution or expenditure “unless the committee has

. . . filed i ts campa ign treasur er appointment not lat er than the 60th day

befor e the da te the contr ibution or ex penditure is made .” Id . § 253.037(a) (1). I t is undisputed that RGA had not filed a campa ign treasur er appointment with the TEC, the FEC, or another state filing authority , but RGA urg es—and Be ll does not dispute—that it falls wit hin the defi n i t i o n of an out-of-state political committee. See id

. § 251.001(15). As such,
9RGA contends that the plain lang uag e of section 253.037, specific ally addre ssing “g ener al-purpose

committees,” doe s not apply to it. RGA does not sug g est that it is not possible for an out-of-state political committee to become subjec t to T e xa s E le c tion Code provisions direc ted at g ener al-purpose committees, such as section 253.037. Rather, it urg es that the two way s for an out-of-state political committee to become subject to these provisions do not apply to RGA beca use it did not voluntarily choose to file a campa ign trea surer appointment under chapte r 252 or spend mo re t h an t wenty perc ent of its funds on in-state e lections. See id . § 251.005(b), ( c); see also § 251.001(15).

Be ll does not dispute that, at the time the contributions wer e made, the exceptions in
sect i on 251.005(b) and (c) did not apply to RGA and that RGA, as an out-of-state political

co m m i t t ee, was not subject to chapte rs 252 and 254, except for section 254.1581. Rather, Be l l contends that, under the plain lang uag e of the statutory definitions, an out-of-state political

co m m i ttee must also be cate g orized as either a specific -purpose committee or a g ener al-purpose committee and that in this instance RGA falls within the definition of a g ener al-purpose committee. See id

. § 251.001(13) (def ining “spec ific-pur

pose comm ittee”) , (14) (def ining g ener al-purpose committee to include a political c ommitt ee suppor ting two or

more unidentified c andidates)

. To support his arg ument that RGA was also a g ener al-purpose commit te e, Be ll points
to RGA’s stated purpose of s u p p o r ti n g Re publican g uberna

torial candida

tes and other “unidentified” state candid at es i n an y s t ate of t he country

. He urg es t hat because RGA falls wit hin the s tatutory definition of both a g ener al-purpose committee and an o u t -o f-state political committee, RGA is subject to E lection Code provisions spe cifica lly direc ted to out- of-state political committees, such

as section 254.1581, as we l l as sections of chapte r 253 specific ally direc ted to g ener al-purpose

10committees, such as section 253.037. Be ll also points to the provision expressl y ex cl u d i n g

out-of-state political committees from the application of section 253.031’s g ener al prohibitions on contrib u t i o n s and expenditures without a campa ign trea surer appointment in eff ect. See id

. § 253.031(e)

. He urg es that, if the leg islature had intende d to except out-of-state g ener al-purpose political committees from sec tion 253.037, it would have said so as it did in section 253.031.

The trial court ag ree d with Be ll and conclude d that RGA was both an o ut-of-state political committee and a g ener al-purpose co m m i t t ee at the time of the disputed contributions. Ba sed on this conclusion, the trial court interpre ted the E l ec t ion Code to allow a g ener al-purpose committee that is also an out-of-state political committee to comply with section 253.037 by filing

a campa ign trea surer appointment with the TEC, the FEC, or the proper filing authority of any other
state. Be cause RGA had not f iled a ca mpaig n trea surer appointment with a ny of these authorities, howeve r, the trial court held RGA liable to B ell for $2,000,000 “re prese nting twice the sum of the First Contribution and the Second Contribution, for making these contributions at a time that it had
not filed a campa ign trea surer appointment.” Th e issue then is whether RGA, as an out-of-state political committee, was also subject to the restric tions and require ments that apply to g ener al-purpose committees in chapte r 253, spec ifically section 253.037, at the r eleva nt time. We beg in with the pl ain l anguag e of the s tatute. Secti o n 251.005 makes clear that out-of-state political committees—whethe r or not they fall within the definition of a g ener al-purpose committee—ar e not su

b je c t to c h a p te r 2 5 2

—

th e c a mp a ig n tr e a surer appointment provisions—unless

one of the exceptions in section 251.005 applies. See id

. § 251.005 (spec ifically listi ng exceptions). Her e, the pa

rties ag ree that the exceptions did not apply to RGA and, there fore , that RGA was not

11subject to chapte r 252. Turning to the plain lang uag e of section 253.037 , i t d o es n ot require the

appointment of a campa ign trea surer but broadly prohibits g ener al-purpose commi t t ee s from “knowing ly mak[ing] or authoriz[ ing] a p o l itical contribution or political expenditure” until their appointment has been on file for 60 d ay s . S ee i d

. § 253.037. Section 253.031 also expressly prohibits a political committee from “knowing ly

. . . mak[ing] or authoriz[ ing] political expenditures

. . . at a time when a campa ign trea surer appointment for the committee is not in eff ect” or from “knowing ly mak[ing] or authoriz[ ing] a campa ign contribution

. . . unless the committee’s campa ign
trea surer appointment has been filed not later than the 30th day befor e the appropr iate elec tion day .” Id

. § 253.031. But, section 253.03 1 ex pressly exempts out-of-state political committees from its prohibitions unless the committee is subject to chapte r 252 under section 251.005. See id

. § 253.031. Once ag ain we obse rve tha t chapter 252 does not apply

to out- of-state political committees unless

one of section 251.005’s specifie d exceptions applies and the leg islature specific ally exempted outof-state political committees in section 253.031 from the prohibition on making contributions and expenditures when a campa ign trea surer appointment for t he committee was not in eff ect. I t there fore follows that the leg islature in section 253.037 did not intend to subject out-of-state political committees in that situation to the 60-day wai t i n g p eriod tied to the appointment of a campa ign
trea surer . A contra

ry interpre tation would be nonsensical and would cre ate an irrec oncilable conflict with the express exemptions for out-of-state political committees in sections 251.005 and 253.031. See Parker , 249 S.W .3d at 396 (interpr eting entire statute, not isolated por tions). The trial court re s o l v ed the interplay betwee n chapte r 252 and section 253.037 by concluding that an out-of-state political committee does n o t have to file a campa ign trea surer

12appointment with the TEC —as would be required for a g ener al-purpose committee un d er s ection

252.009—but that it could comply with section 253.037 by filing an appointment with another state filing authority or the FEC. But we may not add require ments to a statute that are not contained in the plain lang uag e. See City of Rock wall , 246 S.W .3d at 629 (dec lining to rea d additional words into
statute in construing statute); Underk ofler v. Vanasek , 53 S.W .3d 343, 346 (Tex. 2001) (“We defe r to the leg islature’s expli cit policy deter mination t h at o n l y two exceptions apply to the statute of limit ations for these statutory claims, and we will not rew rite the statute to add

. . . a third.”); Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc ., 618 S.W .2d 535, 540 (Tex. 1981) (“O nly when it is nece ssary to g ive eff

ect to the clea

r leg is l at i v e intent can we insert additional words or require ments into a statutory provision.”). Section 252.009 expressly require s g ener al-purpose committees to file their campa ign trea surer appointments with the TEC, and no other provision direc ts out-of-state political committees that they may file with the F EC or some other state filing authority in or der to c omply with section 253.037. 5

Moreove r, the trial court’s interpre tation would rende r th e ex ce p t ions in section 251.005 and 251.031 superf luous. See Columbia Med. C t r . of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue , 271 S.W .3d 238, 256 (Tex. 2008) (“The Court must not interpre t the statute in a manner that rende rs any part of the statu t e m eaningless or superf luous.” (citation omitted)). I n section 251.005, there would be no need to use the phrase “to the same extent as a political committee that is not an out-of-state committee” unless the two classifica tions—in-state and out-of-state committees—wer e

This sug g est s t h at RGA could not comply with section 253.037 by filing a campa ign 5 trea surer repor

t with the FEC or som e oth er state fili ng authority , even if they attempted to do so. See Tex. Elec. Code § 252.009. 13intended to be trea ted differ ently for purposes of the statutory campa ign trea surer appointment and

repor ting require ments. See Tex. Elec. Code § 251.005. The except i o n s in section 251.005 also ref er broadly to “this title,” not just chapte rs 252 and 254, when descr ibing the scope of the Election Code to which out-of-state political committees become subject when one of the exceptions applies. See id. § 251.005(b), (c). I f t he legislatu re had int ended for an out-of-state political committee t o be subject to t h e campa ign trea surer appointment provisions and the repor ting require ments applicable to Texas committees, there was no need to cre ate exceptions in section 251.005 expressly excluding out-of-state political committees from those provisions. See Hogue , 271 S.W .3d at 256. W e conclude that the statute as a whole conflicts with the trial court’s interpre tation of section 253.037. See P arker , 249 S.W .3d at 396.

Be ll arg ues that the TEC has expressly construed the Election Code to conclude that a political committee could simultaneously be both a g ener al-purpose and an out-of- state political committee and cites a TEC opinion from 1992 to support this arg ument. See Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. No. 65 (1992). Even if we wer e to conclude that the definition of a g ener al-purpose committee could include an out-of-state political committee, the pl ai n l an gu age of the statute exempts

o u t-of-state political committees from the campa ign trea surer appointment provisions. S e e F ir s t A m . Titl e Ins. Co. v. C ombs , 258 S.W .3d 6 2 7 , 6 3 2 (Tex. 2008) (courts g ive “serious consideration” to ag ency ’s construction of st atute so long a s rea sonable a nd “does not contradict the plain lang uag e of the statute”). To hold an o u t -o f-state political committee—not subject to chapte r 252—liable under section 253.037 for failing to fi l e a campa ign trea surer appointment with the FEC or some

14other state filing authority would contra dict, among other s ec t ions, the plain lang uag e of sections

251.005, 252.009, and 253.031.

Viewing the statu t e as a wh ole and based upon the rele vant provisions’ plain lang uag e, we conclude that the trial court err ed by interpre ting section 2 53.037 to require out-of-state political committees to file a ca mpaig n trea surer

appointment—if not require d to be filed with the TEC—with another state filing authority or with t h e FE C

. S ee P a rker , 249 S.W .3d at 396. We conclude then that the trial court err ed by holding RGA liable for violating section 253.037 by failing to file a c ampaig n trea surer appointment. We sustain RGA’s first issue.
ii) Section 253.032 I n its second issue, RGA contends t h at t h e t rial court err ed by holding it liable for violating section 253.032 of the Election Code. Section 253.032, titled “L imitation on Contribution by Out-of- State Commi ttee,” sta tes in releva nt part: (a) I n a reporting period, a candi d at e, officeholder , or pol itical committee m ay not knowing ly acc ept political contributions totaling more than $500 from an out-of-state political committee unless, befor e acc epting a contribution that would cause the total to exceed $500, the candida te, office holder, or political committee, as a

pplicable, r ece ives from the out-of -state c ommitt ee: (1) a written statement, cer tified by an o ff

i ce r of the out-of-state committee, listi ng the full name and addre ss of eac h person who contributed more than $100 to the out-of-state committee during the 12 months im mediately

prec eding the date of

the contribution; or (2) a copy of the out-of-state committee’s statement of org anization filed as require d by law with the Fe dera l Election C ommissi on and cer tified by an off icer of the out-of

-state c ommitt ee.

15Tex. E l ec . Code § 253.032(a)

. Subsection (a) prohibits a “ca ndidate, office holder, or political committee” from “ac cepting ” a contribution without a lso be ing provided cer tain information from the out-of-state political committee, and subsection (c) imposes c riminal liability for violating this section. See id . § 253.032(a) , (c)

.

RGA arg ues that the plain text of this provision imposes liability only for acc epting campa ign contributions without the proper paper work, not for making such contributions. The trial
court held otherwise, imposing liability o n RGA based upon its finding s that RGA had failed
to provide the donor list to Texans for Rick Perry as set forth in section 253.032. The trial
court c oncluded:

14. The RGA, as an out-of-state political committee not reg istered with the FEC, may not make a contribution to a candida te, office holder o r p o l i tical committee in excess of $500 without first supply in g a wr i tten statement listi ng the full name a

nd addre ss of ea ch per son who contributed more than $100 to the RGA during the twelve months immediately prec eding the date of the c ontribution. 15. An out-of-state political committee that makes an unlawful contribution i n support of a candida te, by not first supply ing the require d list of persons who contributed more than $ 1 0 0 to the out-of-state political committee in the twelve months immediately p re ce d i n g the date of the contribution, is liable to an opposing candida te for twice t h e v al u e of the amount of the unlawful c ontribution. 16. The RGA is liable to B ell for $2,000,000, repr esenting twice the sum of the First Contribution and the Second Contrib u t i on, for making these contributions without providing a written statement listi ng the full name and addre ss of ea ch per son who contributed more than $100 to the RGA during the 12 months imm ediately prec eding the date of

eac h contribution.

16The trial court’s interpre tation, howeve r, require s words to be rea d into section

253.032 beca

use an out-of-state political committee making a contribution is not listed as an entity subject to the require ments in subsection (a)

. As stated in the prec eding section, we may not “insert additional words or require ments into a statutory provision” unless “nec essar y to g ive eff

ect to the clea r leg islative intent.” Cameron , 618 S.W .2d at 540; see also City of Rock wall , 246 S.W .3d at 629 (dec lining to rea d additional words int o statute in construing statute). The legislature knows how to impose liabili ty

for “ making ” contributions w hen it intends to do so. See, e.g. , Tex. Elec. Code § 253.003(a)

. Had the leg islature intended to subject both the maker as well as the rec ip i ent to liability for violating section 253.032, it could have easily said so. See Cameron , 618 S.W .2d at 540 (“[W] ords excluded from a statute must also be presume d to have be en excluded for a purpose.” );

see also Osterberg , 12 S.W .3d at 38 (cour ts “should not presume to add” to statute when leg islature has demonstra ted it “clea rly knew” how to add phra se in other pa rts of statute). Be ll conce des that the “burde n of compliance appea rs to be place d primarily on the entit y re ce i v i n g the contribution,” but urg es that “such a construction would rende r the provision unenfor cea

ble” and “do violence to the eff ectivene ss of the provision.” Be ll arg ues that the only way to ensure that the l ist is acc urate is to subject t he maker of the contributi on to the re q u i re m en ts in section 253.032. Be ll also points to the trial court’s conclusion that RGA did not proper ly disclose its donors to Texans for Rick Perry to support his position that the trial court proper ly held that RGA violated this section. Our function, howeve r, is to apply the law as written. See Lee v. City of Houston , 807 S.W .2d 290, 293 (Tex. 1991) (“ Ou r fu n ct ion is not to question the wisdom of the statute; rathe r, we must apply it as written.” (citation omitted)). Apply ing the plain m eaning of

17section 253.032, we decline to broade n its scope to impose liability on RGA, the entity making the

contribution. Thus, we conclude that the trial court err ed by holding RGA liable for violating section 253.032. We sustain RGA’s second issue.

iii) Section 254.1581 I n its third issue, RGA contends that the trial court err ed by holding i t l i ab l e for violating sectio n 2 5 4 .1581 of the Election Code. Section 254.1581, titled “Reporting by Out-of- State Polit ical Committ ee,” states:

For eac h repor

ting period under this subchapte r in which an out-of-state political committ ee accepts political contributions or makes political expenditures, the committee shall file with the commission a copy of one or more repor ts filed with the Fe dera l Election Commi ssion or with the proper filing authority of at least one other state that shows th e p o li tical contributions acc epted, political expenditures made, and other expenditures made by the committee. A re port must be filed within the same period in which it is require d to be filed under fede ral l aw o r t h e l aw of the other state.

Tex. Elec. Code § 254.1581. Section 254.1581 imp o s es an o b liga tion on out-of-state political committees to file “a

copy ” of r eports that they have f iled with other specifie d authorities and sets the time fra

me for doing so based on the de adline set by the other a

uthority

. See id

. Holding RGA liable for violating sec ti o n 2 5 4 .1581, the trial court made the following conclusions of law :

17. For any period in which an out-of-state political committee makes political expenditures in co n n ec t i on with a non-fe dera l Texas elec tion, it must file with the TEC a copy of one or more repor ts filed with the FEC or the proper filing authority of at least one other state , showing the political contributions

18acc epted, political expenditu re s m ade and other expenditures made by the committee. 18. An o u t -o f-state political committee t hat m akes a contribution in support o f a candidat e and who fails to file require d repor ts is liable to any opposing candida te for twic e the a mount not reported that is re quired to be r eporte d. 19. The RGA is liable to Be ll for $2,000,000, repr esenting at least twice the sum of the contribut ions it rec eived, the First Contribution and the Second Contribution, which political contributio n s and expenditures it has never repor ted to the TEC. (Emphasis added). RGA urg es t he trial court’s holding and conclus i o n s implicitl y require d RGA
to cre ate a repor

t showing its contributions and expenditures in order to file a copy of that repor t with the TEC. We ag ree .

RGA arg ues that section 254.1581 did not place such an obliga tion on it to file a copy with the TEC beca

use it had not filed repor

ts with the FEC or any other state filing authority

. RGA,

as a s ec t i o n 527 org anization, filed repor ts with the I RS disclosing its political expenditures and contributions. See 26 U.S.C. § 527. RGA, howeve r, di d not file any repor ts with the TEC , and it is undisputed that RGA was not require d and did not file with the FEC o r an y o t h er s t ate filing authority repor

ts showing it s p o li ti c a l e xp e n d it ures and contributions during the rele vant time period. Be ll counter s that the statute imposed a mandatory obliga tion on RGA to file a repor t with the TEC whether or not it had filed a repor t with the FEC or other state filing authorit y . He relies in par

t upon the TEC’s rule 20.13 that state s that out-of-state political committees are : require d to file repor

ts for eac h repor

ting period

. . . in which the out-of-state political committee acc epts political contributio n s or makes political expenditures in connec tion with a state or local elec tion in Texas. Section 254.1581, Election Code, applies to a re port requir ed to be f iled under this sec tion.
191 Tex. Admin. Code § 20.13 (2012) (Texas Ethics Comm’n, Out- of-State Commi ttees). This r ule
sets forth differ ent way s to file a repor t depending on how the rep o rt wa s fi l ed with the other authority

. See id.

Turning to the words chosen by the leg islature i n section 254.1581, howeve r, they expressly require that “a copy ” be fi led—not a report—and the deadline for fili ng the copy is tied
to the deadline set by fede ral law or the other state law. See Scott , 309 S.W .3d at 930 (“Courts must not g ive the words used by the L eg islature an ‘exag g era ted, forc ed, or co n s t rained meaning .’” (citation omitted)). I f the leg islature had intended out-of-state political c ommitt ees to f ile a re port when none was otherwise required, it presumably would have said so and provided a dea dline for filing the repor

t not tied to the other authorities’ deadlines. See Cameron , 618 S.W .2d at 540 (words excluded from statute presumed to be excluded for purpose)

. Fur ther, we assume that the leg islature

was awa re of section 527 org anizations like the RGA and their filing require ments. See American Transit ional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios , 46 S.W .3d 873, 877–78 (Tex. 2001) (“‘ All statutes

are presumed to be enac ted by the leg islature with f ull knowle dg e of the exis ting conditions of the law and with ref

ere nce to it.’” (quoting McBride v. Clayton , 166 S.W .2d 125, 128 (Tex. 1942)). Section 527 org anization’s repor ts showing con t ri b u t i o n s and ex penditures are posted on the I RS website. The leg islature could have conclude d that these ty pes of org anizations did not need to file repor ts with the TEC, g iven that their information was disclosed and available on the I RS website. Apply ing the statute’s plain lang uag e, w e in te r p r e t s e c ti o n 254.1581 to require an outof-state political committee to file a copy of a repor t showing its contributions and expenditures with the TEC only when it is require d to file such a repor t with the FEC or other state filing authority in

20the first instance. We conclude then t hat t h e t rial court err ed by holding RGA liable for violating

section 254.1581. We sustain RGA’s third issue. Cross Appeal Be cause we conclude that RGA did not violate the Election Code sections alleg ed by Be ll, the trial court err ed by awa rding any statutory damag es to Be ll, attorney ’s fee s, and costs based upon these alleg ed violations. See Tex. Elec. Code §§ 253.131, 254.231. On this basis, we overr ule Be ll’s issue on cross appea l in whi ch he seeks additional damag es for the same alleg ed Election Code violations.

CONCLUSION

Having sustained RGA’s iss u e s a n d o v e r r u le d B e ll ’ s issue on cross appea l, we reve rse the trial court’s judgme nt, rende r judgme nt that Be ll take nothing, and rema nd the cause to the trial court for the limited purpose of de termining whether to awar d attorney ’s fe es to RGA.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin; J ustice He nson not participating Reverse d and Rende red in Part; Reve rsed a nd Remanded in Part Filed: September

27, 2013

21