1

Before an election is it legal to pay someone to move out of a jurisdiction so that they will not be allowed to legally run for a specific office?

  • 2
    Election laws vary throughout the world. Where would this be taking place? – Nate Eldredge Jun 16 at 20:04
  • Keep in mind that the statement itself might not be true in some jurisdictions. For instance in Texas, a candidate can run for US Congress in any district including one that they do not live in. The law states that they only must live there and maintain a residence in the district if they are elected. – mark b Jul 16 at 18:48
  • 1
    For that matter, the U.S. Constitution states that a representative in the HOR from a state must only be an inhabitant (i.e. resident) of that state. OP, why do you think it would not be legal? – Damila Jul 16 at 19:15
  • @NateEldredge I was curious about the U.S. – Tom M. Jul 20 at 0:00
  • @Damila I am not sure if it would be legal or not. It sounds like in SC you may not be able to do this. – Tom M. Jul 20 at 0:01
3

No - at least not in South Carolina, depending on your intent.

SECTION 7-25-200. Unlawful inducement to file for or withdraw from candidacy for election.

(A) It is unlawful to offer or accept, or attempt to offer or accept, either directly or indirectly, money, a loan of money, or any other thing of value which includes, but is not limited to, employment or the promise of employment to induce a person to file or withdraw as a candidate for any state or federal elected office.

The FEC, apparently does not see this a problem federally.

  1. Conduct that Does Not Constitute Federal Election Fraud Various types of conduct that may adversely affect the election of a federal candidate may not constitute a federal election crime, despite what in many instances might be their reprehensible character. For example, a federal election crime does not normally involve irregularities relating to: (1)distributing inaccurate campaign literature, (2) campaigning too close to the polls, (3) engaging in activities to influence an opponent’s withdrawal from an election,
  • 2
    Interested to know if a court in SC would include the scenario in the OP- not paying them to withdraw, but paying them to move. It does appear that the intent of the SC law is to discourage that sort of interference into who runs or not runs. – Damila Jul 16 at 19:31
-1

is it legal to pay someone to move out of a jurisdiction so that they will not be allowed to legally run for a specific office?

Yes. Relocation is not illegal, and therefore neither is the act of paying someone to relocate.

The payer is not liable for the disqualification resulting from the candidate's conscious decision to commit a lawful act such as relocation.

  • 2
    I am not sure about the conclusion, but your "therefore" doesn't seem to be sound logic. There are plenty of instances in law where it is legal for a person to do a thing, but illegal for someone else to pay them to do that thing. Bribery and prostitution, for instance. – Nate Eldredge Jun 16 at 20:01
  • @NateEldredge Sure, but the underlying act in both the OP's question and my answer is specifically the act of relocating, not prostitution or other subtle/controversial acts that may fall in the scenario you outline. The matter of a candidate's relocation is hardly intricate at law so as to possibly sanction a 3rd party's incentives toward making it happen. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 16 at 20:33
  • This answer is incorrect, at least as far as South Carolina is concerned > SECTION 7-25-200. Unlawful inducement to file for or withdraw from candidacy for election. > > (A) It is unlawful to offer or accept, or attempt to offer or accept, > either directly or indirectly, money, a loan of money, or any other > thing of value which includes, but is not limited to, employment or > the promise of employment to induce a person to file or withdraw as a > candidate for any state or federal elected office. – George White Jul 16 at 19:24
  • @GeorgeWhite "This answer is incorrect, at least as far as South Carolina is concerned". You think so because you are eluding both the subtlety in the OP's question and the second paragraph in my answer. As Damila pointed out to you, payment is for relocation, not for withdrawal from race. – Iñaki Viggers Jul 16 at 20:02
  • I hope there is a difference between how a legitimate job offer in another location is treated and what the OP asked about is treated. The question says "so that they will not be allowed". "So that" implies an intent to interfere in an election. – George White Jul 16 at 22:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.