Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-101 (2026)

Short title - Application - Administration - Adoption of more stringent requirements

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980."

(b) This part does not apply to any candidate for public office for which the service is part time and for which the compensation is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month; provided, that this exemption shall not be applicable to any such candidate for a public office as a chief administrative officer or to any such candidate whose expenditures exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(c) Any charter provisions of municipalities regarding campaign financial disclosures of candidates for public office apply to candidates for public office, except to the extent that such provisions are in conflict with this part.

(d) The registry of election finance shall have the jurisdiction to administer and enforce the provisions of this part concerning campaign financial disclosure.

(e) Nothing in this part shall be construed as prohibiting the largest municipality located within any county having a population of not less than three hundred thirty-five thousand (335,000) nor more than three hundred thirty-six thousand (336,000), according to the 1990 federal census or any subsequent federal census, from enacting, by ordinance or charter amendment, more stringent financial disclosures of candidates for municipal local public office than those requirements imposed by this part. A municipality adopting more stringent requirements pursuant to this chapter shall compensate the county for any additional expenses incurred by the county election commission as a result of adopting more stringent requirements.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 231,s 10, eff. 7/1/2013.

Acts 1980, ch. 861, § 2; 1982, ch. 689, § 11; 1984, ch. 683, §§ 1, 7; 1989, ch. 585, § 9; 1997, ch. 558, § 23; 2000, ch. 782, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Bemis Pentecostal Church v. State, 731 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bemis Pentecostal Church v. State, 731 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1987). · cites it 6× “This case presents a constitutional challenge to the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980, T.C.A. §§ 2-10-101, et seq. (the Act). The Plaintiffs, thirteen churches in the Jackson area, 1 brought this declaratory judgment action in the Chancery Court of Madison County,…”

Amber Jones v. Kent Coleman, 848 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2017). “This case calls upon us to decide whether the district court properly abstained from exercising its jurisdiction in a case alleging that Tennessee’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 2-10-101 et seq., unconstitutionally burdens the rights of free speech and…”

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tyree, 698 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “2 Randy Tyree testified that the name Tennesseans for Tyree was selected in late 1981 or early 1982, and the initial purpose of selecting the name was for disclosure purposes under the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act, T.C.A., § 2-10-101, et seq. 3 Tyree testified: Q.”

Tennesseans For Sensible Election Laws v. Tennessee Bureau Of Ethics & Campaign Fin., Registry Of Election Fin., & Davidson Cnty. Dist. Attorney Gen. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “Because of this political activity, TSEL must comply with Tennessee’s “Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-101 , et seq., in addition to the “Campaign Contribution Limits Act of 1995,” Tenn.”

Jeremy R. Durham v. Tennessee Registry of Election Fin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “The 1 See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 2-10-101 et seq. 2 See Tenn.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-101(b) — 1 case

Bemis Pentecostal Church v. State, 731 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1987). “This case presents a constitutional challenge to the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980, T.C.A. §§ 2-10-101, et seq. (the Act). The Plaintiffs, thirteen churches in the Jackson area, 1 brought this declaratory judgment action in the Chancery Court of Madison County,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.