Does complying with South Carolina’s rule on benefits paid for by a lobbyist's principal rule out a bribery violation?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, the South Carolina Attorney General said compliance with the lobbying rule on benefits paid for by a lobbyist's principal did not by itself ensure compliance with the separate prohibition on giving or accepting something of value to influence official responsibilities. The two statutes served different purposes and were not inconsistent, so each stood on its own.

The request gave no specific transaction. The AG therefore did not decide whether anyone committed a violation; that depended on the facts, including the circumstances and intent surrounding an offer or receipt. For conduct of House members, it identified the House Ethics Committee as the supervisory office and deferred to that body's findings.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

If a benefit fits the lobbyist-principal rule, is it automatically lawful under the ethics statute? A: No. The AG said satisfying § 2-17-90 did not necessarily immunize a person under § 8-13-705, which separately addressed things of value offered or received to influence official duties.

Did the AG find that a particular lobbyist or legislator violated the law? A: No. The request supplied no specific fact pattern, and the AG said it could not decide facts in an opinion.

Who would assess House members' conduct?
A: The opinion identified the House Ethics Committee as the supervisory body for state representatives under the Ethics Act and deferred to its findings.

Background and statutory framework

§ 2-17-90 generally restricted lodging, transportation, entertainment, food, beverages and invitations paid for by a lobbyist's principal, with exceptions described in the opinion. § 8-13-705 separately prohibited things of value given or accepted in exchange for influence over official responsibilities. The AG read both provisions as independently operative.

Citations and references

The opinion discusses S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 2-17-90 and 8-13-705 and cites a State Ethics Commission opinion on the importance of circumstances and intent.

Official title

Concerning several South Carolina statutes which govern lobbying activities. Specifically, questioning whether S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-705 applies in situations where the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 2-17 90 have been met.

Requester

The Honorable Bakari Sellers, SC House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-29-2011-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/sellers-b-os-9226-3-29-11-lobbying-activites.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN W ILSON
A TI'ORNBY GENERAL

March 29, 201 l

The Honorable Bakari Sellers
South Carolina House of Representatives, District 90
P.O. Box428
Denmark, SC 29042
Dear Representative Sellers:
We received your letter requesting an opinion of this Office concerning several South Carolina statutes which govern lobbying activities. Based on your letter, I believe your question is whether S.C. CODE ANN. § 8-13-705 applies in situations where the requirements of S.C. CODE ANN. § 2-17-90 have been met. This opinion addresses relevant statutes, prior opinions, and statutory construction.

Law/Analysis
As you noted, generally South Carolina law prohibits a public official or public employee from accepting " lodging, transportation, entertainment, food, meals, beverages, or an invitation to a function paid for by a lobbyist's principal," with specifically delineated exceptions. S.C. CODE ANN. § 2-17-90(A). However, this prohibition does not apply when the public official or public employee "pays for his lodging, transportation, entertainment, meals, food, or beverages ... [or] pays the face value of a ticket to attend a ticketed event sponsored by a lobbyist' s principal when the ticketed event is open to the general public." S.C. CODE ANN.§ 2-17-90(F). Additionally, as stated in your letter, S.C. CODE ANN. § 8-13-705(A)(l) makes it a felony for a person to " give, offer, or promise anything of value to a public official, public member, or public employee with the the intent to: (1) influence the discharge of [his or her] official responsibilities." In the same vein,§ 8-13-705(8)(1) states that a " public official, public member, or public employee may not . . . knowingly ask, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, assign, receive, or agree to receive anything of value . . . in return for being: (I) influenced in the discharge of his official responsibilities." S.C. CODE ANN. § 8-13-705, which essentially prohibits bribery, is obviously a separate statute from S.C. CODE ANN.§ 2-17-90. The two statutes are not inconsistent and each stands alone. Accordingly, mere compliance with S.C. CODE ANN. § 2-17-90 does not, in and of itself, ensure compliance with S.C. CODE ANN. § 8-13-705. See State Ethics Commission Op. A092-039 (provision of coffee break or meal by vendor to all participants at show does not violate Ethics Reform Act unless given to influence the recipient) (emphasis added). The determination of whether a violation of S.C. CODE ANN. § 8-13-705 has occurred turns on the facts of the particular situation at issue. See State Ethics Commission Op. A092039 (whether acceptance of "thing of value" is a violation of § 8-13-705 depends on circumstances of offer or receipt of same). Your letter does not present a specific factual situation, and this Office cannot determine facts. (E.g. , Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. (April 6, 2006)) Moreover, as you know, the House of

REMBERT c. DENNIS BUll..DING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Bakari Sellers

Page2
March 29, 2011
Representatives Ethics Committee is the designated appropriate supervisory office under the Ethics Act for State representatives. See S.C. CODE ANN.§§ 8-13-510 et seq. Accordingly, as that Committee is charged with supervisory enforcement of the Act, we would defer to its findings on the propriety of the activities of House members. Conclusion

Compliance with the requirements set forth in S.C. CODE ANN. § 2-17-90 does not necessarily immunize one from a violation of S.C. CODE ANN. § 8-13-705. Rather, whether a violation of§ 8-13-705 has occurred necessarily depends on the specific factual circumstances of the situation at issue.

Very truly yours,

~~~~e-~
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~~/ ~
Deputy Attorney General