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%
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%
Specifically, Ms. Mathieu asks whether, in determining if
the entity was organized primarily for lobbying, one should consider only
whether the entity’s 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.
Mathieu’s questions in order, as the Commission first stated in Advisory
Opinion No. 94-11, if the vast majority of an entity’s overall activity is not
lobbying related, that entity need not comply with §1-95(a)(3), even if the
entity’s Connecticut activities are primarily lobbying related. By the same token, if the vast majority of an
entity’s activities are lobbying related, and the entity is also registered to
lobby in
Turning to Ms. Mathieu’s 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
Acting Chairperson