OFFICE Of THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF TEXAS

JOHN CORNYN

May 11,1999

The Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander Comptroller of Public Accounts P.O. Box 219 Austin, Texas 78767-0219 Opinion No. JC-0046

Re: Authority of charitable organization to conduct raffle that offers prize valued in excess of $50,000, and related questions (RQ-0013)

Dear Comptroller Rylander:

In this opinion we construe portions of the Charitable Raffle Enabling Act, article 179f of the Revised Civil Statutes. As you know, the constitution requires the legislature to prohibit “lotteries and gift enterprises” in the state, except those expressly authorized by the constitution. TEX.CONST.art. III, 5 47(a). Prior to voter approval of aconstitutional amendment in 1989, any raffle was a prohibited lottery, even a raffle for charity. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-513 (1986) at 2; O-6887 (1946) at 3-4. The constitution now allows the legislature by general law to permit a qualified religious society, qualified volunteer fire department, qualified volunteer emergency medical service, orqualified nonprofit organization toconduct acharitable raffle subject to the conditions imposed by law. TEX.CONST. art. III, §47(d). All proceeds from the sale oftickets forthe raffle must be spent forthe charitable purposes ofthe organization. Id. The Charitable Raffle Enabling Act is the general law authorizing and regulating charitable raffles.

Your questions are asked with respect to aspecific organization, St.Jude Children’s Research Hospital. You inform us:

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, anational institution registered as a Texas foreign non-profit, is ahospital which provides treatment for children with cancer and other catastrophic childhood diseases. The hospital, located inTennessee, provides treatment to children without regard to race, religion, creed or ability to pay. ALSAUSt. Jude, the hospital’s fund-raising arm, pays all costs associated with treatment beyond those covered by insurance. Families who have no insurance are never asked to pay. The hospital conducts fundraising activities inTexas. More than 180children from Texas have been treated at St. Jude, including 57 who are current patients. InThe Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander - Page 2 (X-0046)

addition, the hospital provides all its research and clinical care protocols nationwide, including to hospitals in Texas.

Letter from Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller ofPublic Accounts, toHonorable John Comyn, Attorney General (Jan. 25, 1999) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Rylandcr letter of l/25/99]. We do not determine inthis opinion whether St.Jude is an organization qualified under the Act to conduct raffles. Rather, we answer your questions in order to guide those organizations who are qualified to do so.

You first askwhether aqualified organization may raffle aprize valued inexcess of $50,000. You tell us that St. Jude wishes to offer a finished home as a raffle prize. Section 3(g) of the Charitable Raffle Enabling Act provides, inrelevant part: “[Tlhe value of aprize that is offered or awarded atthe raffle and that ispurchased by the organization orforwhich the organization provides any consideration may not exceed $50,000.” TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN.art. 179f, 53(g) (Vernon Supp. 1999). We construe section 3(g) inaccordance with itsplain language, which we think inthis
case clearly indicates the intent of the legislature. See St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp. v.Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1997). A prize that is purchased by the organization or for which the organization provides any consideration may not have avalue ofmore than $50,000. Itfollows that ifaprize is donated to the organization, and the organization gives no consideration for the prize, its value may exceed $50,000. See Hearings on Tex.H.B. 240 &H.R.J. Res. 32Before the House Comm. on State Affairs, 71st Leg., R.S. (Apr. 3, 1989) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services) (statement of Rep. T. Smith, bill sponsor) (“[IIf the prize to be awarded ispurchased, it cannot exceed $25,000 [now $50,000]; however, ifitisdonated there’s no limit on the value ofthe prize.“). A qualified organization may raffle aprize valued in excess of $50,000, but only ifthe prize was not purchased by the organization and the organization gave no consideration forthe prize.

You next ask whether section 3(g) ofthe Act prohibits an organization from “helping fund
araffle prize worth in excess of $50,000 through donations received from other fund raising efforts, such asother raffles ordonations from outside sources.” Rylander letter of l/25/99, at2. Although it is not clear what you mean by “helping fund” a prize, we understand you to ask whether the $50,000 cap applies when an organization purchases aprize with raised funds. We believe that it does. The Act was intended to benefit charitable organizations that receive most, ifnot all, oftheir funds through donations. SeeHearings on Tex.H.B. 240 &H.R.J. Res. 32Before the House Comm.

on State Affairs, 71st Leg., R.S. (Mar. 13,1989) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services). A construction ofthe Act that excludes prizes purchased with donated funds from the $50,000 cap would allow an exception to swallow the rule. Such aconstruction would also be inconsistent with the clear terms of the statute: a prize that is purchased by the organization or for which the organization provides any consideration may not have avalue ofmore than $50,000. See TEX.REV. Crv.STAT.ANN.art. 179f, 33(g) (Vernon Supp. 1999). This istrue even ifthe funds used to obtain the prize were donated to the organization.The Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander - Page 3 (X-0046)

Finally, you ask whether the profits received from araffle may be used to fund the ongoing raffle or future raffles. As required by the constitution, the Raffle Enabling Act provides: “All proceeds from the sale of tickets for the raffle must be spent for the charitable purposes of the organization.” Id. 5 3(d). “Charitable purposes” under the Act means:

(A) benefiting needy or deserving persons in this state, indefinite in number, by enhancing their opportunity for religious or educational advancement, relieving them from disease, suffering, ordistress, contributing to their physical well-being, assisting them in establishing themselves in life
as worthy and useful citizens, or increasing their comprehension of and devotion to the principles on which this nation was founded and enhancing their loyalty to their government; or
(B) initiating, performing, or fostering worthy public works in this state or enabling or furthering the erection or maintenance of public structures in this state.

Id. 52(a)(2). We have said that whether funds are used for acharitable purpose under the Act is a question of fact. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-1180 (1990) at 3. Accordingly, whether a particular use of funds is for a charitable purpose is a question we generally cannot answer in an opinion.

Your question suggests that you would have this office conclude as amatter of law that a qualified nonprofit organization may use proceeds of araffle for future fund-raising efforts. You suggest that because fund-raising helps the organization further its charitable purposes, proceeds used for fund-raising efforts are used for acharitable purpose under the Act. While we agree that fund-raising is an inherent part of almost any charitable effort, in our view the Act requires raffle proceeds to be used for the direct charitable purposes of the organization; that is, for the direct benefit ofneedy or deserving persons inthis state or for initiating, performing, or fostering worthy public works. See TEX.REV.CIV. STAT.ANN.art. 179f, 52(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 1999).

We cannot conclude that fund-raising itself is acharitable purpose. Nor are we prepared to say that itmay never be acharitable purpose. There may be certain organizations who do nothing but raise funds for other charitable organizations. We are not prepared to say whether, in such instances, mnd-raising is a charitable purpose under section 2 ofthe Act. When, as in the case of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, anonprofit organization has an identified charitable purpose ofbenefitting needy ordeserving persons other than fund-raising, we decline toexpand the definition of charitable purpose to include fund-raising. Such an analysis, we believe, would mistake the
means by which the charitable purpose isaccomplished (fund-raising to support medical treatment) with the charitable purpose of the organization (providing medical treatment). In theseThe Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander - Page 4 (X-0046)

circumstances, aqualified nonprofit organization may not use raffle proceeds for the cost of future fund-raising events.

We do not think, however, that the Act precludes an organization from using aportion of a raffle’s gross proceeds topay the expenses ofconducting the raffle generating those proceeds. Like the constitutional provision permitting charitable raffles, the constitutional provision permitting charitable bingo requires “all proceeds” ofthe bingo game to be spent for the charitable purposes ofthe sponsoring organization. TEX.CONST. art.III, §47(b)(l). InAerospace Optimist Club ofFort Worth v. TexasAlcoholicBeverage Commission, 886 S.W.2d 556 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no writ), the court considered whether bingo proceeds could be used for expenses other than those directly serving acharitable purpose. The court found the ordinary meaning of “proceeds” uncertain: itis defined asboth “the total amount brought in” and “the net amount received after deduction of any discount or charges.” Id. at559 (citing WEBSTER’S THIRD NEWINTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY

1807 (1986)). Finding no clear evidence of the intent of the voters in adopting the provision, the court looked to the legislative interpretation of the term. The Bingo Enabling Act equated the constitutional phrase “all proceeds” with the term “net proceeds” by providing: “[tlhe net proceeds of any game of bingo and of any rental of premises for bingo shall be exclusively devoted to charitable purposes.” Id. at 560 (citing TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. ANN.art. 179d, 5 1l(d) (Vernon Supp. 1999)). “Net proceeds” was defined to mean gross receipts “after deducting the reasonable sums necessarily and actually expended for advertising, security, repairs topremises and equipment, bingo supplies and equipment.” Id. Recognizing the value of legislative construction in constitutional interpretation, the court held that “the phrase ‘allproceeds’ asused inthe Bingo Amendment means net proceeds after payment ofreasonable, incidental, and necessary expenses.” Id at 560-6 1. “Any other construction would be unreasonable. Nothing suggests that the drafters ofthe amendment or the voters intended bingo operators to seek outside sources of revenue in order to conduct bingo operations.” Id. at 561.

We believe acourt would apply the same construction given to the phrase “all proceeds” in the constitution’s bingo provision to the phrase “all proceeds” in the constitution’s charitable raffle provision. See L & M-Surco Mfg., Inc. v. Winn Tile Co., 580 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1979, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (“In construing astatutory word orphrase, the court may take into consideration the meaning of the same or similar language used elsewhere in the act or in another act of similar nature.“). Although the Charitable Raffle Enabling Act does not define “all proceeds,” and thus does not construe the term, the remainder ofthe court’s analysis ofthe charitable bingo provision inAerospace applies to the charitable raffle provision. The meaning of the term “proceeds” remains unclear, we find no evidence ofthe voters’ understanding ofthe phrase, and we find no indication inthe legislative history ofthe Act that the legislature intended the cost ofrattles to be funded from outside sources. We therefore conclude that the phrase “all proceeds” asused in the constitution and the Charitable Raffle Enabling Act means net proceeds after payment of reasonable, incidental, and necessary expenses. Accordingly, an organization may use raffle proceeds to pay the reasonable, incidental, and necessary expenses of conducting the raffle from which the proceeds were raised. The net proceeds of the raffle must be spent for the charitable purposes of the organization.The Honorable Carole Keeton Rylander - Page 5 (X-0046)

SUMMARY

Under the Charitable RaMe Enabling Act, aqualified organization may raffle aprize valued in excess of $50,000 ifthe prize was not purchased by the organization and the organization gave no consideration for the prize. If
an organization purchases aprize, the prize issubject tothe $50,000 cap even ifthe funds used for the purchase were donated. An organization may use a portion of the gross raffle proceeds to pay the reasonable, incidental, and necessary expenses of conducting the raffle from which the proceeds were raised, but ordinarily no raffle proceeds may be used to fund subsequent raffles. The net proceeds of the raffle must be spent for the charitable purposes ofthe organization.

JOkN COYNYN Attorney General of Texas

ANDY TAYLOR First Assistant Attorney General

CLARK KENT ERVIN Deputy Attorney General -General Counsel

ELIZABETH ROBINSON Chair, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Barbara Griffin Assistant Attorney General