February 21. 1974

The Honorable Price Daniel, Jr. **Speaker** of theHouse ofRepresentatives State Capitol Building Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. H- 236 Re: Information to be included inactivities **report** filed under The Honorable Mark W. White, Jr. **Secretary** ofState Office ofthe Secretary ofState Austin, Texas 78711 Article 6252-9c, V. T. C. S.

Dear Speaker Daniel and Secretary White: House Bill 2ofthe 63rd Legislature (Acts 1973, ch. 422, p. 1096; Article 6252-9~. V. T. C.S.) is an act “To preserve and maintain the integrity ofthe legislative process ” by requiring that “the identity, expenditures, and activities ofcertain persons who, by direct communication to such officers, engage in efforts to persuade members of the legislative branch or executive branch **to take**  specific actions bepublicly and regularly disclosed. ” Article 6252-9~. V. T. C.S., Sec. 1. (emphasis added) Section S(a) ofthe Act commands that those required bySec. 3to register file a registration form. Sec. 5(b)(3) requires that the statement include:

“the full name and address of each person who

made a contribution orpaid a membership fee in excess of $500 during the preceding 12-month period to the registrant or to the person by whom the registrant is reimbursed, retained, or employed regardless of whether itwas paid solely to influence legislation. ” Section 5(b)(5) further requires:

p. 1097. . - .

The Honorable Price Daniel The Honorable Mark W. White, page 2 (H-236)

“a specific description ofthe matters onwhich the registrant expects to communicate directly with a member ofthe legislative or executive branch to influence legislation, including, if known, the bill numbers and whether the registrant supports cropposes each bill listed. ” The Secretary of State has asked:

“Would the filing of,acomplete list ofnames and addresses ofall persons who made a contribution or paid a membership fee during the preceding 12- month period to the registrant or tothe person by whom the registrant is reimbursed, retained, or employed regardless ofwhether it was paid solely to influence legislation, without specifying which person paid in excess of $500.00 during the preceding 12- month period, constitute compliance with Sec. 5(b)(3), Article 6252-9c, V.A. C.S. ?” TheSpeaker’s question is:

“Is it sufficient, under Section 5(b)(5), for **a** registrant to state that he or she expects to communicate directly with a delegate on matters concerning the Texas Constitution, or, is the registrant required to state the specific Article and Section numbers of the present Constitution or the Constitutional Revision Commission’s recommended document and a description ofany new subject matter concerning the Texas Constitution, about which the registrant expects to directly communicate with a delegate? ” The requirement of S5(b)(3) that the statement list the full name and address of each person who has made **a** contribution in excess of $500 was intended to compel identification of those persons making a contribution or

ps 1098The Honorable Price Daniel The Honorable Mark W. White, page 3 (H-236)
paying a membership fee in excess ofthat amount. We have been pointed to nofact or circumstance which argues against according this language what appears tous tohave been its plain purpose and thrust. InAttorney General Opinion H-18 (1973) we noted the “correlation between the value ofinterests to be protected and the amounts of money ordinarily spent in attempting toprotect them. ” Chief Justice Warren. in discussing the purposes ofthe Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (2U.S.C. $s261-270) has said: “Present-day legislative complexities are such that individual members of Congress cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures towhich they are regularly subjected. Yet full realization oftheAmerican ideal of government by elected representatives depends tono small extent on their ability to properly evaluate such pressures. Otherwise the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned outby the voice of special interest groups seeking favored treatment while masquerading as proponents ofthe public weal. This is the evil which the Lobbying Act was designed to help prevent. “Toward that end, Congress has not sought to prohibit these pressures. Ithas merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose. Itwants only to know who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much

” (emphasis added) United States v. Harriss, 34-7;: S. 612, 625 (1954). Inour opinion, the filing ofa complete list ofall those who contributed to the registrant without specifically identifying those who had paid in excess of $500 would not serve the purpose of theAct which was to let the Legislature and the people know the “how much” ofwhich Chief Justice Warren spoke. We therefore answer the question of the Secretary ofState that such a filing would not comply with f5(b)(3) ofArticle 6252-9~. V. T. C.S.

p. 1099- .

The Honorable Price Daniel The Honorable Mark W. White, page 4 (H-236)

Even though 55(b)(5) speaks in terms ofcommunicating with a member of the “legislative branch” to influence “legislation, ” and the members of the Constitutional Convention sit as “delegates” and not strictly speaking as legislators, nevertheless it is our opinion that they are legislators, in the broadest, uncapitalized sense of that word since the product oftheir labors, by definition, is “legislation. ” Section 2(2) defines “legislation” to include “any matter pending in or which may be the subject ofaction by a constitutional convention. ” Rule XIV ofthe Rules ofProcedures ofthe Constitutional Convention (Journal, January 8, 1974, p. 22) provides that suggested provisions **be** filed with the Secretary ofthe Convention and that each be numbered in consecutive order. 55. We believe, therefore, that the legislative intent in the adoption of S5(b)(5).was that, where the legislative body is the Constitutional Convention, the registrant should include inhis statement “a specific.description ofthe matters onwhich the registrant expects to communicate directly with a member ofthe [Convention] toinfluence legislation, including, if known

. . . .” the proposal numbers and whether he supports or opposes each proposal listed. We therefore answer the Speaker’s question that it is not sufficient under 55(b)(5) ofArticle 6252-9c, V. T. C.S., for a registrant to state only that he or she expects to communicate directly with a delegate on matters concerning the Constitution. To the contrary, the registration statement must describe the matters or proposals inwhich he or she is interested and whether for or against them. SUMMARY Article 6252-9c, V. T. C.S., is designed to give those subject tothepossible influence resulting from communication sufficient information to enable them to befully aware of pressures being brought. The registrant, under 55(b) of the Act must,identify those conp. 1100I..
.

L

‘
.? The Honorable Price Daniel

The Honorable Mark W. White, page 5 (H-236)

tributing $500 or more and must identify those proposals inwhich he is interested, stating whether he favors or opposes them. Very truly yours,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas AP&IOVED: 

# Ji$Js*t

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

I

p. 1101