75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
BARBARA NICHOLS, Secretary
  Department of Regulation and Licensing

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
  You have requested an opinion on six questions concerning various provisions of chapter 163, subchapter VIII, Stats., known as Wisconsin's raffle law. You advise that you are not requesting a review of the license issued under chapter 163 to Butch's Badger Bologna Benefit, Inc., but only a response to six general question areas which have arisen as a result of recent public attention to that raffle.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
I.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
DEFINITION OF "LOCAL ORGANIZATION"

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
  You first ask for advice on the proper construction to be applied to the term "local organization" in section 163.90. That statute provides:

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
  Any local religious, charitable, service, fraternal or veterans organization or any organization to which contributions are deductible for federal or state income tax purposes, which has been in existence for one year immediately preceding its application for a license or which is chartered by a state or national organization which has been in existence for at least 3 years, may conduct a raffle upon receiving a license for the raffle event from the board. No other person may conduct a raffle in this state.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
  I conclude from the following analysis that the term "local organization" is to be construed according to its ordinary and established usage and refers to a status that is less than statewide.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273 (1986)
  In your request you state there exists no statutory definition of the word "local." It is true that chapter 163 nowhere defines the word "local" as used in that statute. However, the statutes along with other sources are replete with definitions which are instructive and helpful in reaching our conclusion. The following are some examples.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 273-274 (1986)
  Section 340.01(26) defines local authorities as "every county board, city council, town or village board or other local agency...." Section 66.945(1)(b) defines local governmental units as meaning "cities, villages, towns and counties." And section 5.02(9) defines local office to mean "any elective office other than a state or national office."

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 274 (1986)
  In addition, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has developed a definition of the word "local." The court has used this definition to distinguish between general legislation and local or special legislation. In Milwaukee County v. Isenring and others, 109 Wis. 9, 19, 85 N.W. 131 (1901), the court stated: "An act is 'general,' as contradistinguished from and inconsistent with 'local,'... when its operation extends to the whole state...." In Monka v. State Conservation Comm., 202 Wis. 39, 231 N.W. 273 (1930), the court refined the concept of general legislation to include any matter of statewide interest. In this context, then, the essential feature of a local matter is that it concerns and affects only a specific geographic area within the state.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 274 (1986)
  This office has also previously examined the meaning of the word "local." In particular, in 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 335 (1977) the statutory phrase "local public defender organization" was construed. See sec. 977.03, Stats. The opinion first cited several other Wisconsin statutes and cases which indicate that "local" means something other than statewide. The opinion then concluded that to qualify as a "local" organization, an organization must embrace "less than the entire state" and benefit "one specific geographical area." 66 Op. Att'y Gen. at 336.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 274 (1986)
  What emerges from these examples is the concept that the term "local organization" expresses a status that is less than that enjoyed by a statewide organization and I therefore so conclude.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 274-275 (1986)
  I am aware that in federal commerce clause cases "local" is used to describe state laws and intrastate businesses. In Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), for example, the Supreme Court described a state statute as a "local regulation." 397 U.S. at 143. Other commerce clause cases indicate that a local business is one that operates within state lines. See, e.g., Lewis v. BT Inv. Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 (1980). However, the meaning of the word "local," when used in the context of federal commerce clause cases, has no bearing on the meaning to be ascribed to the word when used by the Wisconsin Legislature. The federal commerce clause cases use the word to distinguish entities that operate in interstate commerce from those that operate strictly intrastate. The Wisconsin Legislature, on the other hand, clearly uses the word to distinguish entities that operate on a statewide basis from entities that are limited to a specific geographical area within the state.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 275 (1986)
  You state that "[c]onsistently since passage of the raffle legislation in 1977, the department and board have uniformly interpreted the term 'local... organization'... as meaning an organization organized in this state." However, it is well settled that while an interpretation placed upon a statute by the administrative agency charged with the duty of applying the statute is entitled to great weight, the interpretation is only significant where there is an ambiguity in the statute. Milwaukee v. Lindner, 98 Wis. 2d 624, 297 N.W.2d 828 (1980). Because I believe the meaning of the statute under consideration to be clear and unambiguous, your prior administrative interpretation cannot overcome the plain wording of the statute.¯*

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 275 (1986)
  You also express concern that were I to reach the conclusion which I have in fact reached, the department "would be compelled to make arbitrary decisions on the meaning of 'local.'" While I understand your concern, I do not believe that the department will necessarily face insurmountable practical difficulties in reaching such decisions in its licensing process. The Bingo Control Board can use its rule making authority under section 163.04(3) to interpret the word "local" and provide guidance for applicants. The rule could, for example, be patterned after the United States Treasury Regulation 1.501(c)(12)-1(b) which provides:

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 275-276 (1986)
An organization of a purely local character is one whose business activities are confined to a particular community, place, or district, irrespective, however, of political subdivisions. If the activities of an organization are limited only by the borders of a State it cannot be considered to be purely local in character.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 276 (1986)
  As previously discussed, in 66 Op. Att'y Gen. 335, 336 (1977), this office defined "local" as benefiting "one specific geographical area." Although the statutes do not contain a general definition of the word "local" they do contain definitions of particular local entities, such as local committees (section 144.445(7)), local public bodies (section 85.20(1)(d)) and local authorities (section 340.01(26)). Section 23.48(1)(e) defines "local unit of government" as "the governing body of any city, town, village, county...." My perusal of the statutes leads me to conclude that the board would be justified in presuming that any applicant which engages in its primary activities on a countywide or smaller area would be a "local" organization. The rule could provide that any organization which is organized on, or engages in its primary activities on, a basis larger than a county unit would have to meet the department's equivalent of the treasury regulation. This suggested approach, of course, is merely designed to provide you with a starting point for developing guidelines or a rule and is subject to further refinement based upon the experience of the department and the board in administering the statute.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 276 (1986)
  Finally, before leaving question one, it should be noted that the construction of the term "local organization" in this opinion enjoys the benefit of hindsight and exhaustive research. Without the benefit of those factors, the past confusion concerning the meaning of "local" is certainly understandable. The Bingo Control Board's decisions are entitled to a presumption of validity. See C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure 153. Given that presumption, one might have concluded prior to this opinion that the board's decisions stood as authority for the proposition that the statutory reference to any "local organization" could include statewide organizations. In any event, the objective in issuing this opinion is to remove the cloud of uncertainty and provide guidance for future decisions.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 276 (1986)
II.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 276 (1986)
AREA OF DISTRIBUTION OF RAFFLE TICKETS

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 276 (1986)
  Your second question inquires whether a licensed local organization (as now defined) may sell raffle tickets throughout the entire state.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 277 (1986)
  Generally speaking, the laws of this state do not limit the activities of local organizations to something less than a statewide basis. Section 181.04(9), for example, relating to the powers of non-stock corporations, specifically authorizes such organizations to carry out their operations and exercise the powers granted to them by chapter 181 "within or without this state." Section 180.04(9) grants the same authority to business corporations. Chapter 188, relating to all fraternal societies, is replete with provisions imbuing such local posts, county councils and the like with "full corporate power to transact business in this state."

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 277 (1986)
  Those are some of the statutes specifically referring to the generalized statewide authority of the very types of organizations which may be eligible to obtain licenses to conduct raffles. You, however, have specifically asked whether raffle tickets can be sold on a statewide basis by a licensed local organization. The answer to this question is inextricably intertwined with the answer to your first question.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 277 (1986)
  Section 163.02(2) clearly indicates that the purpose of chapter 163 is, inter alia, to prevent commercialization of raffles in every respect. As previously discussed, the purpose of the legislation was to allow only small local raffles and not to allow statewide raffles. I, therefore, draw the following conclusions.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 277 (1986)
  If the licensee makes random, sporadic and unorganized sales of raffle tickets in various parts of the state outside the organization's locality, these sales, because of their nature, do not convert a legitimate local raffle to a nonlocal or statewide raffle. For example, if a member of a licensed local organization in Dane County travels to Douglas County for a family reunion or on a business trip and takes a number of raffle tickets to Douglas County and sells them, this is not such an organized statewide sale as would be impermissible.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 277-278 (1986)
  If, on the other hand, a licensed local organization engages in large-scale, organized and programed sales of raffle tickets throughout the state, then it would appear that in fact a statewide raffle is being conducted by a so-called "local" organization and would appear to violate the intent and purpose of chapter 163. In addition, if the primary or sole purpose of the organization was in fact the raising of money through an organized, programed statewide raffle, then the organization would not come within the meaning of the word "local" as used in the statute and would, therefore, not be eligible for a raffle license.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 278 (1986)
III.

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 278 (1986)
PAYMENT TO THIRD PARTIES BY A RAFFLE LICENSEE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF A RAFFLE

75 Op. Att'y Gen. 273, 278 (1986)
  Your third question is whether section 163.94 prohibits all payments to organizations or individuals in connection with the conduct of a raffle or whether the statute merely prohibits such payments if their source is the profit made from raffles.