Could Connecticut’s ethics commission refund part of a lobbyist registration fee for a year without lobbying?

Plain-English summary

In April 1997, Connecticut’s AG answered the State Ethics Commission after the Legislative Regulations Review Committee rejected proposed lobbyist registration rules without prejudice. The AG distinguished his office’s limited review of a proposed regulation for legal sufficiency from the committee’s independent review. A proposed interpretation could be legally sufficient without being the approach the committee chose. He declined to choose between competing interpretations where both met that legal standard.

On fees, the commission had asked about refunding lobbyists who registered for a two-year period but did not lobby in its second year. The AG said public funds could be paid out only as law directed. Other statutes specifically authorized fee refunds for named programs, but the ethics commission’s statutes and Public Act 96-11 did not authorize the proposed partial refund. The act specified when a one-year registration fee was available and did not provide for a reduced fee in other circumstances.

Ethics commission staff at the time

The AG’s earlier approval for legal sufficiency did not settle the committee’s objections. The opinion identified no legal basis for the suggested fee refund.

Lobbyists and legislative reviewers at the time

The opinion distinguished a one-year registration authorized by the act from a later partial refund of a two-year fee. It left the committee’s preferred regulation wording to that body’s independent review.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lobbyist get a refund for not lobbying in the second year of a two-year registration?
A: The AG found no authority for the commission to make that refund.

Q: Did AG approval require the review committee to accept the proposed regulation?
A: No. The AG said his office checked legal sufficiency, while the committee had its own review power.

Q: Did the AG choose between the competing readings of the registration act?
A: No. He said that was not his role when both readings could be legally sufficient.

Background and statutory framework

The commission asked about rules implementing Public Act 96-11 after legislative review. The AG discussed the separate review standards in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-169 and § 4-170, then considered whether any law authorized the suggested refund.

Citations and references

Statutes: Public Act 96-11; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-169; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-170.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1997-formal-opinions/alan-s-plofsky-state-ethics-commission-1997010-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

Alan S. Plofsky, State Ethics Commission, 1997-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

April 8, 1997

Alan S. Plofsky

Executive Director and General Counsel

State Ethics Commission

20 Trinity St.

Hartford, CT 06106-1660

Dear Mr. Plofsky:

This letter is in response to your February 6, 1997 inquiry regarding the Legislative Regulations Review Committee's rejection without prejudice of your agency's proposed regulations implementing amendments to the lobbyist registration laws set forth in Public Act 96-11.

Initially, I should point out to you that my Office's approval of your proposed regulations is not necessarily relevant to the independent action that the Regulations Review Committee takes on them. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-169, this Office reviews proposed regulations only for "legal sufficiency," defined as "(1) the absence of conflict with any general statute or regulation, federal law or regulation of the Constitution of this state or of the United States and (2) compliance with the notice and hearing requirements of section 4-168." Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-170, the Regulations Review Committee's review is not limited in that or any other fashion when it rejects proposed regulations "without prejudice" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-170(e).

Therefore, to the extent that your question merely involves competing questions of interpreting Public Act 96-11, so long as either of the interpretations would be "legally sufficient," it is not my function to choose between them. To the extent that the Committee is of the opinion that the regulations should provide for a one year registration in the first year of a biennium, that interpretation would appear to be legally sufficient under the standards of Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-169, and so further discussion is inappropriate.

Regarding the proposal of offering a refund to those lobbyists who do not lobby in the second year of a two year registration period, I would note that the paying out of state funds may be done only as directed by law. See, e.g., Eielson v. Parker, 179 Conn. 552, 561 (1980). More particularly, when the legislature has sought to give an agency the authority to provide a refund of a fee, or to permit application to the comptroller for a refund of a fee, it has provided so specifically. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-145b (teaching certificates); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-22v (higher education tuition) ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-480(a) (motor carrier road tax credit); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-23 (auto registrations issued to those in the armed forces); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-31 (motor vehicles with commercial registration unfit for use). The legislature has not included such a provision in the Ethics Commission's statutes. In addition, Public Act 96-11 specifies the circumstances under which a one year registration fee may be made. There is no provision for payment of less than the statutory fee in any other circumstances.

I hope this responds to your question.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

RB/GTD