Court Opinion

ID: 9630678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:17:12.971475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:41.400596
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CAPPY
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I have no quibble with the manner in which the majority sets forth the law regarding the preemption doctrine. Like Judge Colins opined in the decision below, however, I disagree with the majority’s application of the law in the circumstances of this case. See Nutter v. Dougherty, *366921 A.2d 44, 67 (Pa.Commw.2007) (Colins, J. concurring and dissenting).
The majority opinion rests much of its conclusion on the silence of the General Assembly with regard to campaign contributions. Nevertheless, I conclude that silence in this case speaks volumes. As Judge Colins pointed out, the Legislature has addressed the field of campaign contributions comprehensively in the Election Code, 25 P.S. §§ 3241-3260b. See Nutter, 921 A.2d at 67-68. By not addressing limits on campaign contributions in these same provisions, the Legislature reflected its intent not to provide for such limitations.
Furthermore, I share similar concerns to those raised by Judge Colins that the natural consequence of the majority’s opinion today will be the “balkanization of the Election Code,” since any locality will be free to adopt its own campaign financing regulations. Id. at 68. An inconsistent approach with regard to campaign finance limits among the various local entities would lead to confusion in the campaign rules, and, more importantly, completely undermine the uniformity the Election Code seeks to promote.
For these reasons, I must dissent.
Justice FITZGERALD joins this dissenting opinion.