Advisory Opinion No. 1995-4
Further Interpretation Of Term Organized Primarily
For The Purpose Of Lobbying
As Used In
Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-95(a)(3)
Brenda L. Mathieu, auditor for the State Ethics Commission, has
asked for further clarification regarding the application of Conn. Gen. Stat.
§1-95(a)(3). Ms. Mathieu asks how the
statute would apply to a nonprofit corporation which describes itself in its
mission statement filed with the Internal Revenue Service as a corporation
organized to promote the common interests of a particular industry as well as
to advance the interests of a particular segment of the general population. The corporation further describes its
primary activities to include monitoring and communicating with legislatures
on behalf of its members concerning proposed legislation affecting the
particular industry. Finally, the
corporation breaks down its budget in the following manner: Administrative expenses 33.00%
Specifically, Ms. Mathieu asks whether, in determining if
the entity was organized primarily for lobbying, one should consider only
whether the entitys activities in The State Ethics Commission in Advisory Opinion No. 94-11
indicated as a preliminary matter that any determination of whether an entity
must comply with §1-95(a)(3) 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. Here, the entity
itself has described its primary purpose to include lobbying; this description goes
a long way to answering the question of whether the entity must comply with
§1-95(a)(3). With this preliminary consideration in mind, and taking Ms.
Mathieus questions in order, as the Commission first stated in Advisory
Opinion No. 94-11, if the vast majority of an entitys overall activity is not
lobbying related, that entity need not comply with §1-95(a)(3), even if the
entitys Connecticut activities are primarily lobbying related. By the same token, if the vast majority of an
entitys activities are lobbying related, and the entity is also registered to
lobby in Turning to Ms. Mathieus second question, in its budget, the
entity has explicitly allotted a third of its expenditures to state and federal
lobbying. That budgetary breakdown may
be somewhat misleading, however:
expenditures in furtherance of lobbying should also be considered, and a
certain percentage of the other budget categories of administrative expenses,
telephone, equipment/rent, postage, publication/printing, travel and legal
almost certainly represent such expenditures. Thus, in the words of Advisory Opinion No. 94-11, the
totality of the circumstances presented indicate that this entity should comply
with §1-95(a)(3). Each of the
circumstances considered (i.e., the mission statement, the
description of primary activities, the budget breakdown) provides information
to help make this determination; no one circumstance taken alone constitutes
the indisputable answer to the question of whether to comply with §1-95(a)(3). Finally, Ms. Mathieu asks how to determine whether a
particular contributor needs to be reported.
Clearly, those persons and/or entities who contributed $1000.00 or more
in a given year with the specific intent that the money be used in By order of the Commission, Rev. William Sangiovanni
Telephone
3.15%
Equipment/Rent
2.13%
Freight/Postage
5.76%
Travel
5.34%
Legal
3.56%
Federal
Lobbying
19.46%
Publication/Printing
8.10%
State
Lobbying
13.46%
Misc.
Other
3.92%
Misc.
Office
2.12%
Acting Chairperson