Does Arkansas's 2014 lobbyist gift ban (Issue 3) prohibit a chamber of commerce from hosting a legislative reception that is open to all legislators?

Plain-English summary

Speaker of the House Davy Carter asked about Ballot Issue No. 3, which Arkansas voters passed on November 4, 2014. Issue 3 amended Article 19 of the state constitution, in part by barring certain elected officials from "knowingly or willfully solicit[ing] or accept[ing] a gift from a lobbyist." The Speaker's specific question: are the traditional legislative receptions, where associations or chambers of commerce host an event open to all legislators with food, drink, and bar, "now expressly prohibited" by the new constitutional amendment?

AG Dustin McDaniel said no. Issue 3 carves an exception into the definition of "gift" itself: the term does not include "[f]ood or drink available at a planned activity to which a specific governmental body is invited." Because the General Assembly fits within Issue 3's definition of "governmental body" (which expressly includes legislative bodies, offices, departments, commissions, councils, boards, committees, agencies, and other establishments of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch), a reception "open to all legislators" meets the exception.

The AG then narrowed the exception in two important ways:

1. The invitation must be to the entire body. The terms in the definition of "governmental body" are collective nouns. Congress, the Senate, and similar terms are grammatically singular but mean a group of persons as a single unit. The word "office" in the list refers to the institution, not the officeholder. So an invitation has to reach the entire body to fit the exception. The word "legislator" is separately defined to mean an individual officeholder, and is conspicuously left out of the "governmental body" definition.

2. Only legislatively-created groups count. Within the General Assembly context, the AG read "establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the state" to mean groups created by official action of the legislative branch as a whole, by constitution, statute, or rule. Groups like the Joint Budget Committee and Legislative Council qualify. Affinity-based caucus groups, which are not created by official legislative action, do not. So a reception "open to the Joint Budget Committee" or "open to Legislative Council" or "open to the entire General Assembly" would qualify; a reception "open to the Democratic Caucus" or "open to the Sportsmen's Caucus" would not.

Three elements summarize the test: (1) an invitation, (2) to the entire collective "governmental body" (whether the General Assembly itself or a legislatively-created committee or council), (3) to attend a "planned activity."

The opinion does not address other provisions of Issue 3 (term limits, salary-setting commission, contribution limits) beyond what is needed to answer the gift question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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

Did the AG say lobbyist-hosted receptions for "all legislators" are clearly permitted?
Yes, with the qualifications above. The opinion describes the reception scenario in the Speaker's question (food, drink, bar, host pays facility/catering/staff, invitation open to all legislators) as "not prohibited" because the food and drink at a planned activity to which a specific governmental body is invited fall outside the definition of "gift."

What if a reception is open to all legislators "and other invitees"?
The Speaker described the receptions as "typically open to all legislators and other invitees." The AG italicized "all" to emphasize that the invitation must extend to the entire body to fit the exception. Other invitees are permissible; the question is whether the entire body was invited, not whether only the entire body was invited.

Why are caucuses excluded from the "governmental body" definition?
Because "governmental body" requires "establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the state." Caucuses are organized by legislators themselves on affinity grounds (party, region, issue area) without official legislative action. They are not establishments of the legislative branch.

What if the food/drink is at a one-on-one meeting with a legislator?
The opinion does not address that, but the AG's analysis would suggest the exception does not reach it. The exception requires invitation to a "specific governmental body," not to an individual legislator (which is what the separately defined "legislator" term covers).

Is this opinion binding on the Ethics Commission or the courts?
No. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding. The Ethics Commission, which enforces the gift ban, makes its own interpretations subject to judicial review.

Background and statutory framework

Issue 3 of 2014, formally titled "An Amendment Regulating Contributions to Candidates for State or Local Office, Barring Gifts from Lobbyists to Certain State Officials, Providing for Setting Salaries of Certain State Officials, and Setting Term Limits for Members of the General Assembly," amended several articles of the Arkansas Constitution. The gift ban codified as Article 19, Section 30.

The provision the AG construes (the exception to the gift definition) is part of the constitutional text itself. The constitutional definition of "governmental body" includes "an office, department, commission, council, board, committee, [or] legislative body, agency, or other establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch." That language drives the AG's reading: each item is a collective noun, "office" refers to the institution rather than the officeholder, and the list is closed by "other establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch" which requires formal creation by one of those branches.

The "legislator" definition (Article 19, Section 30(b)(6)) is separately listed and refers to the individual ("a person who is a member of the General Assembly . . ."). The AG infers from the deliberate separation that an invitation to "a legislator" or "some legislators" is not an invitation to a "governmental body."

The opinion does not interpret the Issue 3 contribution limits or term limits provisions. It also does not address whether the AG's reading is exclusive; the Ethics Commission and courts retain their own interpretive authority.

The AG relies on Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage (3d ed. 2009) for the collective-noun analysis. The Garner citation is unusual in an AG opinion but the analytical move is plain: each term in the definition list refers to a unit, not to its individual members.

Citations

• Ark. Const. art. 19, § 30 (Issue 3 lobbyist gift ban, prohibition)
• Ark. Const. art. 19, § 30(b)(3) (definition of "governmental body")
• Ark. Const. art. 19, § 30(b)(6) (definition of "legislator")
• Garner, Modern American Usage (3d ed. 2009) (collective noun definition)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2014-125

November 21, 2014

The Honorable Davy Carter
State Representative
500 Woodlane Avenue
State Capitol, Suite 350
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1037

Dear Speaker Carter:

You have asked for my opinion regarding Ballot Issue No. 3, which was passed by a majority of the voters on November 4, 2014. Ballot Issue No. 3, which amended several Articles of the Arkansas Constitution, contained the following popular name: "An Amendment Regulating Contributions to Candidates for State or Local Office, Barring Gifts from Lobbyists to Certain State Officials, Providing for Setting Salaries of Certain State Officials, and Setting Term Limits for Members of the General Assembly." The provisions of Issue 3 that are most relevant to your question amended Article 19 of the Arkansas Constitution.

You provide the following background for your request:

Traditionally, associations, public interest groups, individuals and chambers of commerce have hosted legislative receptions during legislative sessions. A calendar of such events was maintained in order to organize events so that citizens could meet legislators. These events cost money, which was paid by the host organization. For example, the chamber of commerce from a given city would host an event for legislators where food, beverages and a bar would be provided. The host organization would pay for facility rental, caterers, bartenders, servers and other expenses. The event would typically be open to all legislators and other invitees.

You ask whether "such events [are] now expressly prohibited under this constitutional amendment [effect by the passage of Issue No. 3]."

RESPONSE

No.

Section 1 of Issue No. 3 makes it illegal for certain elected officials to "knowingly or willfully solicit or accept a gift from a lobbyist." But Issue No. 3 defines "gift" in such a way that it does not include "[f]ood or drink available at a planned activity to which a specific governmental body is invited." Therefore, if "a specific governmental body" is invited to attend "a planned activity," then the food and drink available at that activity are not considered "gifts" subject to the foregoing prohibition.

The term "governmental body" is defined in such a way that it includes the General Assembly: "'Governmental body' . . . means an office, department, commission, council, board, committee, [or] legislative body, agency, or other establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch . . . ." You say that the reception "would typically be open to all legislators." Thus, in the scenario you describe, a "specific governmental body" has been invited to "a planned activity." Therefore, because the food and drink at the receptions you describe are not considered "gifts," nothing in Issue No. 3 prohibits the legislators from accepting them.

Further, I note that you say the receptions "would typically be open to all legislators." (Emphasis added.) It is important to note that, in order to fall into the exception to the definition of "gift," which was explained above, three elements must be met: (1) an invitation must be extended to the entire (2) "governmental body" (3) to attend a "planned activity." That the invitation must be extended to the entire body is clear because each item in the foregoing definition of "governmental body" is a collective noun, which is a "noun that names a group of people" and thus "is grammatically singular but has a plural sense." A stock example of a collective noun is the word "Congress." Though grammatically singular, it conceives of several persons as one unit. Likewise, when examining the items in the definition of "governmental body," one can see that they are all collective nouns because they all conceive of a group of persons as a single unit. Even the term "office," when read in context, clearly refers, not to the person holding the office, but to a group of persons who, collectively, form a single office. This reading of the term "office" is bolstered by the fact that the term "legislator" is separately defined to refer to the individual officeholder and is not included in the definition of a "governmental body."

Further, regarding the second element, the fact that the group invited must consist of a "governmental body" means that, given the way the term is defined, and in the context of your question, only groups created by the General Assembly qualify as "governmental bodies." Thus, groups like the Joint Budget Committee or Legislative Council qualify as governmental bodies, but not affinity-based groups such as (for example) the various caucus groups. This conclusion is grounded in the text of Issue 3. The term "governmental bodies" is defined as an "establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the state." (Emphases added.) The various caucus groups are not "governmental" in the way that the Joint Budget Committee or Legislative Council are because they are not established by official action of the legislative branch of government as a whole. In order for any "office, department, commission, council, board, [or] committee" to be an "establishment of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the state" it would need to be officially created by the one of the three branches of the State. This would occur when the "establishment" was created by law (whether constitutional or statutory) or rule.

Therefore, in response to your specific question, Issue No. 3 neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits the scenario you ask about.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Attorney General

DM/RO:cyh