Advisory Opinion No. 1994-11
Interpretation Of Term Organized Primarily For The
Purpose Of
Lobbying As Used In Conn. Gen. Stat.
§1-95(a)(3)
Specifically, Mr. McCormick has asked: (1) if a client lobbyist is organized in
Connecticut and its Connecticut activities are primarily lobbying, must it
comply with the reporting requirements of §1-95(a)(3) even if 80% of its
overall activities are outside Connecticut (whether or not those outside
activities involve lobbying); (2) must the reporting requirements be met by an
entity organized outside Connecticut whose Connecticut activities involve
primarily lobbying but whose activities outside the state are not related to
lobbying, and; (3) if a company initially was organized primarily for lobbying,
but its lobbying activity subsequently becomes only a minor part of the
companys activities, must the company continue to comply with the reporting
requirements of §1-95(a)(3)? As a preliminary matter, while the Commission can provide
some basic guidelines to help determine whether an entity is organized
primarily for the purpose of lobbying, such guidelines will not address every
possible situation. A Commission
determination of whether an entity need comply with this particular reporting
requirement will be based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
lobbying activity, rather than on an inflexible specific percentage of the
overall activity which must be lobbying-related. Thus, if it is unclear whether an
organization needs to comply with the requirements of §1-95(a)(3),
the Commission staff should be contacted for assistance in making the
determination. Turning to Mr. McCormicks first and second questions, in
general, regardless of whether a corporation is organized in Connecticut, if
80% of the corporations activities both within and outside of Connecticut
involve lobbying or activities in furtherance of lobbying, then the corporation
must comply with §1-95(a)(3). If 80% of
the corporations overall activities, whether within or outside of Connecticut,
are not lobbying-related, even if most of its Connecticut activity is so
related, then the corporation need not comply with §1-95(a)(3). There may, however, be specific factual
situations which will not fit the general rule.
For example, if an entity is incorporated in This leads to Mr. McCormicks third question, which is, in
effect, when does the duty to comply with §1-95(a)(3) end if the entity in
question was initially organized primarily for lobbying but subsequently alters
its activities? This question may best
be answered with an example. If a
corporation wished to build a factory in Connecticut to manufacture baseballs,
but needed to change a state law before any construction could begin, and the
corporation had little or no other interests either in Connecticut or
elsewhere, the company would have to comply with §1-95(a)(3) for that
year. If, however, the lobbying campaign
was successful, the company was able to build its factory, and lobbying was no
longer its primary purpose, the §1-95(a)(3)
requirement would not extend to the next year.
In short, if a company is at one time organized primarily for lobbying,
but thereafter lobbying becomes a secondary activity, it need only comply with
§1-95(a)(3) for the year(s) in which lobbying was its primary function for at
least a part of the year. Similarly, if
an entity which was originally organized for other purposes becomes primarily
concerned with lobbying, the requirements of §1-95(a)(3)
will apply when appropriate. By order of the Commission, Christopher T. Donohue
Chairperson