The Honorable Fred Head 

House of Representatives 

Capitol Building 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. H- 55 

Re: The construction of 

House Bill No. 8 

Dear Representative Head: 

You have submitted to us House Bill No. 8, adopted by the 63rd 

Legislature and ask 17 specific questions concerning its construction. 

In general, House Bill 8 amends Title 87 of the Revised Civil 

Statutes by adding thereto Article 5428a. (References hereafter are 

to sections of Article 5428a unless otherwise noted.) 

Section 1 contains definitions. Section 2 requires each candidate 

(defined as any member or candidate for the House who has announced 

that he will seek election to the Office of Speaker) to keep records of 

all information required by the Article. 

Section 3 requires each candidate to file a sworn statement with 

the Secretary of State on the first day of January, March, May, July, 

September and November and the day preceding each Regular and Called 

Session of the Legislature, until all campaign loans have been repaid, 

listing: (I) each contribution of money received by him, or by others in 

behalf of his campaign: (2) each contribution of services and other things 

of value other than money received by him or others in behalf of his campaign, giving the nature of the contribution, etc. ; (3) each loan made to 

him or others in behalf of his campaign, including specific information 

concerning such loan; (4) each expenditure of funds made by him or in 

his behalf in excess of $10; and (5) his sworn statement on an official form 

designated by the Secretary of State. 

Section 4 has to do with filing. Section 5 provides penalties for 

those who willfully fail to file the statement. Section 6 provides that all 

statements filed under the statute shall be open to public inspection. 

Section 7(a) prohibits corporations, partnerships, associations, firms, 

unions, foundations, committees, clubs or other organizations or groups 

of persons from contributing or lending or promising to contribute or 

p. 229 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 2 (H-55) 

lend money or other things of value to any candidate or other person for 

the purpose of aiding or defeating the election of any candidate. Subsection (b) excepts loans made in the dune course of business to a candidate 

for campaign purposes by a corporation legally engaged in the business 

of lending money. Subparagraph (c) provides penalties for violation of 

subsection (a) and subsection (d) provides for punishment of any candidate 

who knowingly receives such illegal<contribution or loan. 

Section 8 provides penalties for a conspiracy to circumvent any of 

the provisions of the Act. 

Section 9 sets those purposes for which a candidate may expend 

campaign funds and provides a penalty in the event of expenditure of any 

funds for any other purpose. 

Section 10 provides in subsection (a); 

“Any individual other than a candidate may 

contribute his personal services and traveling 

expenses to aid or defeat any candidate and may 

expend a sum, which may not exceed $100 in the 

aggregate, for the cost of correspondence to aid 

or defeat the election of any candidate. ” 

Subsection (b) provides that all other campaign expenditures must 

be made by the candidate from campaign funds and (c) that any individual 

other than a candidate who expends or authorizes the expenditure of funds 

in excess of $100 for correspondence or who expends any funds for any 

other purpose except personal services and traveling expenses commits 

a misdemeanor. 

Section 11 excepts from those allowed to make contribution of personal services, money or goods to any candidate, persons who are elected 

officers or employees of either the executive or judicial branches of the 

state government and makes its violation a misdemeanor. 

Section I2 requires that all prosecutions under the Act must be brought 

by indictment rather than by complaint and information. 

The object of constr,uction of a statute is to ascertain the legislative 

intent, and not to defeat, nullify, or thwart it. City of Mason v. West Texas 

p. 230 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 3 (H-55) 

Utilities Co., 237 S. W. 2d 273 (Tex. 1951). The entire act must be construed in the light of all of its provisions, obligations and requirements. 

Texas Turnpike Authority v. Shepperd, 279 S. W. 2d 302 (Tex. 1955); 

Rogers v. First National Bank of Midland, 448 S. W. 2d 149 (Tex. Civ. 

APR. , 1969), err. ref’d, n. r. e.). A reasonable construction should be 

given, not one that would lead to absurd conclusions. McKinney v. 

Blankenshie, 282 S. W. 2d 691 (Tex: ~1955). 

Your first question is: 

“Subject to the prohibitions found in Section 11 

of H. B. 8, may w individual contribute money directly 

to a candidate’s campaign fund? If so, is there any 

limitation upon the amount of money such individual 

may contribute directly to a candidate’s campaign fund? ” 

Section IO(a) alone would seem to limit individual contributions to 

personal services and traveling expenses, and a sum not to exceed $100 for 

the cost of correspondence. However, $ 3(l) contemplates that a candidate 

will receive contributions of money. Since $7(a) makes.it illegal for anyone but an individual to contribute, it must be that, in addition to those 

rights specifically conferred by 5 10(a), individuals may also contribute 

funds. There is no limitation on the amount which they may contribute. 

Your second question asks: 

“Subject to the prohibitions found in Section 11 

of H. B. 8, may any individual contribute services 

and other things of value directly to a candidate? If 

so, is there any limitation upon the amount of services 

and other things of value such an individual may contribute directly to a candidate? ” 

Our answer to Question 2 is the same as our answer to Question 1. 

Section 3(2) recognizes that a candidate may receive contributions of services and other things of value other than money (which may not be contributed by any corporation or other entity than an individual, under $7. 

There would be no limitation as to the amount or value of the services 

and things thus contributed. 

p. 231 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 4 (H-55) 

Your third question asks: 

“May an individual contribute the use of 

transportation devices, operators of same, and 

expenses atttibutable thereto, to a candidate for 

use by the candidate in behalf of his campaign’? 

if so, is there any limitation on the value of the 

transportation, operators of same, and expenses 

attributable thereto that an individual may contribute ? .I’ 

It is our opinion that when $ 3(2), speaking of contributions “of services and other things of value, other than money, ” includes contributions 

of the type about which you ask. Therefore our answer to Question 3 

would be substantially,the same as our answers to 1 and 2. There would 

be no limitation as to the value. 

Your fourth question is: 

“Is it legal for a member of the Texas Legislature to contribute money, services, and other things 

of value to a candidate in behalf of his campaign? 

Please consider all Texas statutory law, the State 

Constitution and the Rules of the Texas House. ” 

Construction of the Rules of the Texas House of Representatives 

is a responsibility, in the first place, of the Speaker himself, and secondarily, of the Parliamentarian. We feel it would be inappropriate in this 

context for us to attempt to tell the House of Representatives what its rules 

mean and therefore we decline to answer insofar as that portion of your 

question is concerned. With reference to the Texas statutes, other than 

prohibitions against bribery and siniilar statutes of general application, 

we find no law prohibiting a contribution by a member of the Legislature to 

a candidate for Speaker of the House. Nor do we believe that the Texas 

Constitution would inhibit such contribution. House Bill 8 would prohibit 

members and employees of the executive and judiciary departments from 

contributing, thus raising a question as to Equal Protection; nevertheless, 

we feel that this represents a reasonable classification which would be upp. 232 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 5 (H-55) 

held by the courts. Bjorgo v. Bjorgo, 492 S. W. 2d 143 (Tex. 1966); 

Buchanan v. State, 480 S. W. 2d 207 (Tex. Crim. 1972). 

Your fifth question is: 

. 

“In reporting the contribution of services or 

other things of value iB a-candidate required to state 

the estimated value of such service or things of value?” 

Section 3(2) requires that the sworn statement of the candidate filed 

with the Secretary of State shall list the following information: 

“(2) Each contribution of services and other 

things of value . . . , the nature of the contribution, 

the complete name and address of the contributor, 

and the date and value of the contribution; . . . . ” 

We believe therefore that the answer to your fifth question is “Yes. ” 

.Your sixth question asks: 

“What does the term ‘correspondence’ mean 

as used in Section 10(a) of H. B. 8?” 

In construing statutes we are required by Article 10, Vernon’s Texas 

Civil Statutes, to give words their ordinary signification unless they are 

words of art. “Correspondence” is not a word of art. It has a number of 

meanings among which are: (1) the state or condition of agreement of things 

or of one thing with another; (2) the communication between persons by an 

exchange of letters; any communication by lette~rs; (3) the letters exchanged 

by correspondents; etc. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 

1967). We are of the opinion that to attribute to “correspondence, ” as used 

in $10, any meaning other than the second stated above would be to ignore 

the qbvious intent of the Legislature and to give to the statute an unrealistic 

meeting. Thus it is our understanding and opinion that $ IO(a) permits an 

individual to spend not to exceed $100 for ,the cost of communicating with 

other persons by LetLer, the cost to be composed of the cost of preparing 

the letter and the cost of postage. 

p. 233 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 6 (H-55) 

Your seventh question is: 

“Does the term ‘in the aggregate’ as used in 

Section IO(a) of H. B. 8 refer to the total expenditures 

of any individual for the cost of correspondence from 

the effective date of H. B. 8 until the time of election 

. or defeat of a candidate br-does it refer to expenditures relating to specific transactions separate and 

apart from other subsequent transactions? ” 

It is our opinion that the word must mean the aggregate of all costs 

for correspondence during the campaign. 

Your eighth question asks: 

“Is a candidate required to report expenditures 

for correspondence made by another individual in behalf of said candidate’s campaign when paid by stich 

other individual? ” 

Section 3 governing the report to be filed by each candidate requires 

the report of money received, of the contribution of services and other things 

of value received by him or others in behalf of his campaign, of loans made 

to him or such others, and of each expenditure of campaign funds made by 

him, “his agents, servants, staff members, or employees in behalf of his 

campaign. ” It would not seem to cover expenditures made by others not on 

‘his staff but not contributed to his campaign as funds or spent by him, Therefore, OUT answer to question 8 would be that a candidate is not required to 

report expenditures for correspondence made by another individual not on 

his staff when they are paid by another individual. 

Question nine asks whether a candidate is required to report personal 

services of another individual in his behalf when paid by such other individual. While an individual is authorized to contribute his personal services, 

we see nothing in the Act which would authorize an individual to purchase 

personal services of another in behalf of the campaign. However, in either 

event, § 3(2) would seem to require the candidate to report each contribution 

of services received by him. 

p. 234 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 7 (H-55) 

Your tenth question is: 

“Is a candidate required to report traveling 

expenses of another individual in behalf of said 

candidate’s campaign when paid by such other individual? ” 

. ‘ -. 

If an individual, while contributing his own personal services, 

travels and incurs expenses which he himself pays, we do not believe 

that the candidate is required to report those expenses, provided the 

individual is not on the candidate’s staff. [Sec. 3(4)] 

Your eleventh question asks: 

“May a candidate expend funds for travel 

expenses incurred by House members attending 

political and other meetings in behalf of his candidacy? ‘! 

Section 9(a)(l) lists as a permissible expenditure of campaign 

funds: “travel for the candidate, his immediate family, and his campaign staff. ” If another member of the House is also a member of the 

candidate’s campaign staff then it is our opinion that the candidate niay 

expend funds for his travel expenses. If he is not a member of the staff, 

then his expenses cannot be paid. 

Your twelfth question asks: 

“May a candidate expend funds for travel 

expenses incurred by nonpaid staff and supporters 

attending political and other meetings in behalf of 

his candidacy? ” 

Referring again to § 9(a) (1) of the act, it is our answer that as to the 

campaign staff, whether paid or not, campaign funds may be used to cover 

the expense of travel. Travel expenses for persons who are merely supporters but not staff members and not members of the candidate’s family 

could not legitimately be paid. 

p. 235 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 8 (H-55) 

Your thirteenth question asks: 

“Does H. B. 8 require the filing of expenditures 

made in behalf of a speaker’s campacgn of less than 

$lO.OO? If so, must such a filing list name of person 

paid and purpose of expenditure?” 

. l -- 

Section 3(4) in defining expenditures which must be reported states: 

“Each expenditure of campaign funds made by 

him, his agents, servants, staff members or employees 

in behalf of his campaign, the complete name and address 

of each person to whom a payment in excess of ten dollars 

($10.00) is made and the purpose of each expenditure. . . . I’ 

The ten dollar limitation, in our opinion, only applies to the listing of 

the name and address of the recipient and the report must list each expenditure and must give the purpose of each~expenditure. The name of the recipient is to be listed only.in the event the expenditure exceed $10. 

Your fourteenth question asks: 

“Does the prohibition found in Section 11 of 

H. B. 8 violate any state or federal constitution 

provision? ” 

We have previously alluded to the exclusion by 5 11 of officers or employees of either the.executive or judicial branch of the state government 

from those who may contribute services, money or goods toward the candidacy of any person for the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

The problem, if there is one, is one of equal protecti,on guaranteed both by 

the Federal and the State Constitutions. However, under each Constitution, 

the Legislature may classify persons and treat persons differently. So long 

as the,classification is not arbitrary and capricious, it is not unconstitutional. 

Where, as in this case, the election involved concerns the inner workings of the legislative branch of the government, we are not able to state 

p. 236 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 9 (H-55) 

that exclusion of influence by the executive and judicial branches is without reason or is impermissible. It is our opinion therefore that $11 does 

not violate any State or Federal constitutional provision. 

Your fifteenth question asks: 

. “Other than the prohibitions of Section 11 of 

H. B. 8,are State officials or employees in any way 

prohibited from contributing money, services, and 

other things of value directly to a candidate’s campaign fund? ” 

1t is our opinion that state officials or employees, other than those 

excluded by $11, are not prohibited from contributing money, service and 

other things of value directly to a candidate’s campaign fund. 

Question sixteen asks: 

“May all entities that are legally engaged in 

the business of lending money and that have continuously conducted such business for more than one 

year make loans to a candidate?” 

After excluding from those who might contribute to a candidate’d’fund 

corporations, partnerships, associations, firms, unions, foundations, committees, clubs or other organizations or groups of persons, 5 7(b) states: 

“This section does not apply to loans made in 

the due course of business to candidate’s for campaign 

purposes by a corporation that is legally engaged in 

the business of lending money and that has continuously 

conducted the business for more than one year prior to 

the making of the loan. ” 

The provision is unambiguous and applies only to corporations. Other 

entities, even though legally engaged in the business of lending money, etc., 

are prohibited by $7(a) from making loans to candidates. 

p. 237 
The Honorable Fred Head, page 10 (H-55) 

Your seventeenth question asks: 

“May individuals make loans to a candidate in 

behalf of the candidate’s campaign? ” 

Since individuals are not prohibited by $7(a) from lending money to 

a candidate and since there is no litiitation or prohibitions upon the amount 

which may be donated by an individual to a candidate, it is our opinion that 

individuals may make loans to a candidate in behalf of,his campaign. 

SUMMARY 

House Bill 8, for the most part, is unambiguous 

and must be read literally with reference to who may 

and may not contribute to the campaign of candidates 

for election to the office of Speaker of the House, the 

amounts of such contributions, the extent of expenditures which may be made of campaign funds, and 

other similar matters. 

Very truly yours, 

c/Attorney General of Texas 

APPR,&ED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 238