Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-1003 DuronioCarolyn D. Duronio, Esquire Reed Smith Shaw & McClay LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 -1886 Dear Ms. Duronio: I. ISSUE: OPINION OF THE COMMISSION Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Julius Uehlein Louis W. Fryman John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket DATE DECIDED: 2/1/2000 DATE MAILED: 2/11/2000 00 -1003 Re: Lobbying, Principal, Lobbyist, Legislative Action, Administrative Action, Direct Communication, Indirect Communication, State Official, Endowments, Public Policy Activities, Forums, Grant. This Opinion is issued in response to your advisory request received on November 22, 1999. Whether Endowments that are classified as private foundations under the Internal Revenue Code and are exempt from federal income tax are "principals" under the Lobbying Disclosure Act where they engage in public policy activities involving: 1) hosting forums, which are not open to the public but which are about public policy issues, where various experts are invited to discuss and debate general topics in furtherance of grant making decisions of the Endowments; 2) exchanging information with state agencies where the state agencies contact the Endowments to provide information about or to request support for various governmental programs or for nonprofit entities perceived as furthering agency goals; 3) meeting with state agency staff to determine whether there are any opportunities for collaborative grant making; 4) collaborating with state agencies on projects to further the administrative goal of creating public /private partnerships and to further the Endowments' charitable purposes; 5) inviting government officials to participate on Advisory Boards of the Endowments to assist with grant making policy in the Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 2 Endowments' various program areas; and 6) funding advocacy organizations - -that engage in lobbying within the meaning of the Act -- through grants that prohibit influencing legislative action, due to federal restrictions, but that neither prohibit nor require such organizations to use the funds for lobbying as to administrative action. II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINATION: On behalf of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment (the "Endowments "), you request an advisory from the State Ethics Commission under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (the "Act "). The facts which you have submitted may be fairly summarized as follows. The Endowments are nonprofit corporations formed under the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law. Both are classified as private foundations for federal income tax purposes and both are exempt from paying federal income tax pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code "). The Endowments are among the largest and most active charitable foundations in Pennsylvania. However, the Endowments do not undertake charitable activities directly. Rather, the Endowments are grant making organizations that support and promote various charitable organizations and purposes throughout Pennsylvania, such as: environmental protection; education; the arts and culture; children, youth and family issues; and economic development. During 1998, the Endowments collectively made grants totaling approximately 50 million dollars, primarily to organizations operating in Pennsylvania. You state that the Endowments view participation in the debate concerning public policy issues as an integral part of their mission. They participate through their grant making, and thus, they view the collection and discussion of information and opinions, as a means of informing their grant making, as vital to their ongoing operations. You state that the Endowments do not undertake activities that would be classified as "lobbying" for federal tax purposes. You state that as private foundations for federal tax purposes, the Endowments would be subject to a prohibitive excise tax on taxable expenditures under Section 4945 of the Code if they would engage in activities intended to influence legislation as defined under the Code. You state that while the Act and the federal provisions relating to lobbying are somewhat different, there are many similarities; therefore, the Endowments are reluctant to register in Pennsylvania as principals that "lobby" unless such registration is clearly required based upon their current activities. The Endowments engage in the following six categories of public policy activities: 1. Public Policy Forums. The Endowments often host forums on public policy issues where various experts assemble to discuss issues relating to the topic of the forum. You state that the purpose of the forums is to explore public policy issues to determine the best way to deal with such issues, and that the primary goal of the forums is to educate the Endowments' program staff on the various issues so that they may make more informed choices regarding grant making. The Endowments invite participants who are Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 3 knowledgeable about the specific topic. The forums are not open to the public. Representatives of state administrative agencies are, at times, present at such meetings. The debates are general and are intended to inform those present about the issues. While public policy issues are debated, specific legislation or administrative action is not encouraged, and participants are not requested to take action to influence legislation or administrative action. With regard to this first category of activities, you argue that there is no intent to influence specific legislative or administrative action within the meaning of the Act. You state that even when representatives of governmental agencies participate, there is no intent to influence specific actions or to cause them to come to certain conclusions. You additionally argue that the forums do not result in an "indirect communication" under the Act, because they are not "educational campaign[s] on public issues" directed to the public and intended to cause the public to contact legislators or administrative representatives. 2. Requests for Support from the Endowments. You state that representatives of state agencies often contact the staff of the Endowments to provide information about or to request support for various governmental programs which they believe to be complementary to programs supported by the Endowments. The governmental staff generally ask the Endowments to share information with them about such programs. The Endowments find the mutual exchange of information with respect to programs to be beneficial. It is not uncommon for administrative departments to request funding from the Endowments for their own programs or for new private nonprofit entities which they believe further agency goals. The Endowments often act favorably upon these requests. You state that the contacts under this category are initiated by the administrative departments. With regard to this second category of activities, you argue that when representatives of an administrative agency request support from the Endowments, the Endowments are not "lobbying" within the meaning of the Act. You contend that the Endowments are not attempting to influence administrative actions or decisions, but instead, are providing direct support to the governmental agencies with the goal of encouraging increased public /private discourse and partnerships. 3. Meetings with Administrative Staff. The Endowments fund a variety of public policy programs through grants to other organizations. At times, the Endowments' staff will contact a staff person of the appropriate administrative department to provide information about the Endowments' activities and the types of programs the Endowments support and to determine whether there are any opportunities for collaboration in grant making. You state that the purpose of these contacts is to determine the types of programs that the governmental agency, as another significant funding source, deems valuable and viable. You further state that these contacts assist the Endowments in their grant making priorities by providing insight into the priorities of the appropriate administrative agency. Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 4 With regard to this third category of activities, you argue that when the Endowments' staff contact administrative agency staff to determine whether there are areas where collaboration would be viable and to determine the agencies' views on issues, there is no intent to influence "administrative action," which you characterize to be formal action, with respect to a regulation, guideline or statement of policy. You state that rather than an attempt to alter the agencies' positions, such contacts are attempts to discover the agencies' positions on issues and proposed projects and to seek common ground for jointly sponsored projects. Consequently, you conclude that this activity is not "lobbying" under the Act. 4. Collaboration. Administrative agencies and the Endowments collaborate on several projects. For example, the Endowments are a partner with the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts in a program known as PennPAT, and staff members of the Endowments have attended board meetings of the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts to discuss the program. It is anticipated that in the future, collaboration between the Endowments and state agencies with respect to programs will increase because of the administrative goal of creating public /private partnerships. With regard to this fourth category of activities, you argue that the Endowments' sponsorship of and participation in programs in which administrative agencies also participate is not lobbying. You state that activities such as PennPAT are public /private partnerships intended to further the policy goals of the administrative agency and the charitable purposes of the Endowments. Hence, you conclude that there is no intent to influence administrative action as defined in the Act. 5. Advisory Boards. The Endowments convene Advisory Boards /Committees which provide guidance and insight to the Endowments as to the types of programs and activities that the Endowments should be supporting. Members of the legislature and Secretaries of administrative departments may be asked to serve on these Advisory Committees. With regard to this fifth category of activities, you submit that participation by government officials on the Endowments' Advisory Boards does not constitute "lobbying" by the Endowments under the Act. You state that the purpose of the Endowments' Advisory Boards is to provide input to the Endowments about the Endowments' core programs. Members of the Advisory Boards participate in discussions concerning the types of programs and purposes that the Endowments should support. Therefore, you opine that the Endowments are not influencing legislative or administrative action; rather the governmental officials are influencing the grant making policies of the Endowments. 6. Grants to Organizations that Lobby. The Endowments fund advocacy organizations that engage in lobbying within the meaning of the Act. However, the Endowments' grants to such organizations prohibit "lobbying" as it is defined for federal tax purposes. You state that this prohibition would preclude influencing "legislative action" under the Act. While the Endowments' grants prohibit Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 5 influencing legislative action, they neither prohibit nor require the funded organizations to use the funds for lobbying as to "administrative action." Rather, the organizations themselves choose how to expend the grant funds, and you presume that if they lobby, they register with this Commission. With regard to this sixth and final category of activities, you argue that the Endowments should not be attributed with any lobbying that is undertaken by organizations funded by the Endowments for the following reasons: (1) the Endowments do not specifically require that the grants be used for lobbying, and indeed, the funded organizations are contractually precluded from undertaking lobbying with respect to legislative action; (2) the funded organizations are not the Endowments' agents with respect to their actions, and the funded organizations may not act on behalf of the Endowments; and (3) even if the Endowments were to have reason to believe that the grant funds made to advocacy organizations would be used for lobbying of administrative agencies, there is no requirement that the funds be used in that manner, but rather, the boards /management of the organizations receiving the grants determine the use of the funds. It is the Endowments' position that none of the above activities would constitute "lobbying" within the meaning of the Act. In addition to the arguments set forth above, you proffer the following legal arguments in support of the Endowments' position. You argue that an effort to influence legislative action or administrative action requires activities to affect specific legislation or formal administrative action. You argue that contacts should only be classified as lobbying under the Act if they are intended to influence specific legislation, specific legislative proposals, or formal actions by an agency concerning regulations, guidelines or statements of policy, including those that are proposed. You contend that the intent of the Act cannot be to require registration for all discussions of public issues, including all discussions with public officials. You state that the mere discussion of public policy or general thoughts with respect to societal issues is not lobbying for federal purposes. You assert that this Commission should interpret the Act to similarly permit discourse on general public policy issues and similar contacts with legislators or agency officials without requiring registration as a principal. You note that there is a specific federal exception for "nonpartisan analysis, study or research" even if the results of such analysis, study or research are provided to governmental representatives. You state that at the federal level, "nonpartisan analysis, study or research" is defined as an independent and objective exposition of a particular subject, and that such nonpartisan analysis, study or research may actually advocate a particular view as long as there is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts to enable the recipient to form an independent opinion or conclusion (Citing Treas. Reg. §53.4945- 2(d)(1). You state that any activities by the Endowments where issues are debated would be structured to satisfy this federal requirement. You further state that the definitions of "direct communication" and "indirect communication" must be interpreted in the context of the definition of lobbying and activities that qualify as lobbying. Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 6 You contend that none of the Endowments' activities are undertaken with an intent to influence legislation or administrative action within the meaning of the Act. You argue that unless there is an intent to affect legislative action or administrative action, which you would define as formal action by the legislature or an administrative agency, activities cannot constitute "direct communication" or "indirect communication." Citing Treas. Reg. §56.4911- 2(b)(1) and 2(d)(1)(ii), you state that a "direct lobbying communication" for federal tax purposes requires reference to "specific legislation," that is, legislation that has been introduced or a specific legislative proposal. Citing Treas. Reg. §56.4911- 2(b)(2), you state that at the federal level, an indirect communication requires that the principal "encourage the recipient of the communication to take action" by stating that the recipient should contact a legislator or by otherwise providing detailed information on how to contact the legislator. You further argue that this Commission should adopt the federal standard that private foundations such as the Endowments are not deemed to be lobbying when they make grants to organizations that lobby, provided the grants are not earmarked for lobbying (Citing Treas. Reg. §53.4945- 2(a)(6)). Since the Endowments do not earmark any grant for lobbying, you contend that they should not be deemed principals under the Act as a result of their grants to advocacy organizations. Having summarized the facts and arguments submitted in your advisory request letter, we note that by letter dated January 7, 2000, you were notified of the date, time, and location of the public meeting at which your request for an Opinion was to be considered. At the public meeting on February 1, 2000, you appeared and restated the facts in your submission which may be fairly summarized as follows. You assert that none of the activities undertaken by the Endowments constitute lobbying because there is no intent or action on their part directed at influencing legislative or administrative action, and the private foundations are absolutely prohibited from engaging in such lobbying activities. In your view, the Endowments simply engage in discussions of broad social and economic policies, the purpose of which is not to influence administrative regulations, statements of policy, or guidelines. III. DISCUSSION: It is initially noted that pursuant to Section 1308(c) of the Act in conjunction with Sections 1107(10) and 1107(11) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § §1107(10), (11), advisories are issued to the requestor based upon the facts which the requestor has submitted. The Commission does not engage in an independent investigation of the facts, nor does it speculate as to facts which have not been submitted, in issuing advisories. It is the burden of the requestor to truthfully disclose all of the material facts relevant to the inquiry. An advisory only affords a defense to the extent the requestor has truthfully disclosed all of the material facts. In order to decide the issues which you have raised, this Commission must review the pertinent definitions and substantive provisions of the Act and related Regulations. Section 1303 of the Act defines "lobbying" as follows: "Lobbying." An effort to influence legislative action or administrative action. The term includes: (1) providing any gift, entertainment, meal, transportation or Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 7 lodging to a State official or employee for the purpose of advancing the interest of the lobbyist or principal; and (2) direct or indirect communication. 65 Pa.C.S. §1303. The key terms "legislative action," "administrative action," "direct communication," and "indirect communication" that are within the definition of "lobbying" are themselves defined as follows: "Legislative action." An action taken by a State official or employee involving the preparation, research, drafting, introduction, consideration, modification, amendment, approval, passage, enactment, tabling, postponement, defeat or rejection of legislation; legislative motions; overriding or sustaining a veto by the Governor; or confirmation of appointments by the Governor or of appointments to public boards or commissions by a member of the General Assembly. "Administrative action." Any of the following: (1) An agency's: (i) proposal, consideration, promulgation or rescission of a regulation; (ii) development or modification of a guideline or a statement of policy; or (iii) approval or rejection of a regulation. (2) The review, revision, approval or disapproval of a regulation under the act of June 25, 1982 (P.L.633, No.181), known as the Regulatory Review Act. (3) The Governor's approval or veto of legislation. (4) The nomination or appointment of an individual as an officer or employee of the Commonwealth. (5) The proposal, consideration, promulgation or rescission of an executive order. "Direct communication." An effort, whether written, oral or by any other medium, made by a lobbyist or principal, directed to a State official or employee, the purpose or foreseeable effect of which is to influence legislative action or administrative action. "Indirect communication." An effort, whether written, oral or by any other medium, to encourage others, including the general public, to take action, the purpose or foreseeable effect of which is to directly influence legislative action or administrative action. The term includes letter- writing campaigns, mailings, telephone banks, print and electronic media advertising, billboards, publications and educational Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 8 campaigns on public issues. The term does not include regularly published periodic newsletters primarily designed for and distributed to members of a bona fide association or charitable or fraternal nonprofit corporation. 65 Pa.C.S. §1303. The terms "principal" and "lobbyist" are defined in the statute as follows: "Principal." Any individual, firm, association, corporation, partnership, business trust or business entity: (1) on whose behalf a lobbyist influences or attempts to influence an administrative action or a legislative action; or (2) that engages in lobbying on the principal's own behalf. Id. "Lobbyist." Any individual, firm, association, corporation, partnership, business trust or business entity that engages in lobbying on behalf of a principal for economic consideration. The term includes an attorney who engages in lobbying. The Lobbying Disclosure Regulations define the term "effort to influence legislative action or administrative action" in pertinent part as follows: Effort to influence legislative action or administrative action - -An effort to initiate, support, promote, modify, oppose, delay or advance a legislative action or administrative action... . 51 Pa. Code §31.1. In applying the above provisions to your inquiry, we shall first review the general legal arguments which you have made, and we shall then address the six specific categories of public policy activities in which the Endowments engage. We initially note that while you have repeatedly cited regulations of the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury as to what does and does not constitute lobbying by private foundations for federal tax purposes, we are constrained to interpret and enforce the Pennsylvania Act based upon its provisions and the provisions of the related Regulations. Moreover, while we do not have the jurisdiction to interpret federal laws or regulations, if your interpretations are correct, the regulations which you have cited differ significantly from the Pennsylvania Act and Regulations. For example, Pennsylvania's definition of what constitutes an "indirect communication" would appear to be much broader than what is contemplated by the federal regulation. As for the proffered federal exception for "nonpartisan analysis, study or research," the Pennsylvania Act includes no such exception. Moreover, the interpretation which you have proffered suggests the potential for an undesirable loophole by which one might avoid the legal requirements pertaining to lobbying by simply referencing other viewpoints in addition to the one being advocated. Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 9 We turn now to your argument that contacts should only be classified as lobbying under the Act if they are intended to influence specific legislation, specific legislative proposals, or formal actions by an agency concerning regulations, guidelines or statements of policy, including those that are proposed. It appears that you are attempting to limit the term "lobbying" based upon whether a bill has already been formally introduced, or an administrative agency has already taken formal action to propose regulations, guidelines, or statements of policy, and to thereby exclude from "lobbying" the efforts that occur prior to such formal action. We reject the argument. Based upon the key definitions of the Pennsylvania Act and Regulations, which are quoted above, "lobbying" includes an effort to influence legislative action or administrative action at any stage of the process. The definition of "effort to influence legislative action or administrative action" specifically includes an effort to initiate legislative action or administrative action, and thus encompasses lobbying efforts made before any formal action is taken by the legislature or state agency. As for your contention that the intent of the Act cannot be to require registration for all discussions of public issues, including all discussions with public officials, we agree with that much of your argument. However, where factually, a discussion constitutes an effort to influence legislative action or administrative action as those terms are defined in the Pennsylvania Act, it does constitute lobbying and it is subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Pennsylvania Act, assuming the participant(s) in question fall within the definition of "lobbyist" or "principal" and none of the statutory exemptions at Section 1306 of the Act are applicable. You argue that for lobbying to occur, there must be an intent to affect legislative action or administrative action. We find that based upon the definitions of "direct communication" and "indirect communication," the lobbying effort may either be for the purpose or "with the foreseeable effect" of influencing legislative action or administrative action. Your final general argument is that this Commission should adopt the Internal Revenue Service's standard that private foundations such as the Endowments are not deemed to be lobbying when they make grants to organizations that lobby, provided the grants are not earmarked for lobbying. Since the Endowments do not earmark any grant for lobbying, you contend that they should not be deemed principals under the Act as a result of their grants to advocacy organizations. We decline to adopt such a blanket approach. While the giving of a grant to an advocacy organization which lobbies does not necessarily make the grantor a principal where the grant is not earmarked for lobbying purposes, the issue of whether a grant is for lobbying purposes is factually intensive and therefore must be decided on a case by case basis. For example, there could be situations where, based upon factors such as a funded organization's activities and budget and the amount of the grant, or even the substance of a grant application, at least some of the grant monies would necessarily be expended for lobbying. We now turn to the six categories of public policy activities by the Endowments. The first category of public policy activities involves the hosting of public policy forums. You state that the purpose of the forums is to explore public policy issues to determine the best way to deal with such issues, and that the primary goal of the forums is to educate the Endowments' program staff on the various issues so that they may make more informed choices regarding grant making. We hold that under the facts which you have presented, where the public policy forums are not open to the public, the debates are general, specific legislation or Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 10 administrative action is not encouraged, and participants are not requested to take action to influence legislation or administrative action, the hosting of a public policy forum would not per se constitute lobbying under the Act, even if State officials or employees would be present. However, activity that would attempt to influence legislative action or administrative action would constitute lobbying, regardless of whether the activity would occur at such an event. See, e.q., McGee, Opinion 99 -1022 (Raising similar issues as to attendance at a political function or state association business meeting). We shall now consider the second, third, and fourth categories of public policy activities by the Endowments. The second category of public policy activities involves requests from state agencies for support from the Endowments. You state under this category, the administrative departments contact the staff of the Endowments to provide information about or to request support for various governmental programs. The governmental staff generally ask the Endowments to share information with them about Endowment programs. The administrative departments at times request funding from the Endowments for their own programs or for new private nonprofit entities which they believe further agency goals. The Endowments often act favorably upon these requests. You contend that the Endowments are not attempting to influence administrative actions or decisions, but instead, are providing direct support to the governmental agencies with the goal of encouraging increased public /private discourse and partnerships. The third category of public policy activities involves meetings with administrative agency staff for purposes of determining whether there are opportunities for collaborative grant making. With regard to this third category of activities, you argue that when the Endowments' staff contact administrative agency staff to determine whether there are areas where collaboration would be viable and to determine the agencies' views on issues, there is no intent to influence "administrative action," which you characterize to be formal action, with respect to a regulation, guideline or statement of policy. You state that rather than an attempt to alter the agencies' positions, such contacts are attempts to discover the agencies' positions on issues and proposed projects and to seek common ground for jointly sponsored projects. The fourth category of public policy activities involves the Endowments' collaboration with state agencies on projects through public /private partnerships. You argue that the Endowments' sponsorship of and participation in programs in which administrative agencies also participate is not lobbying. You state that activities such as PennPAT are public /private partnerships intended to further the policy goals of the administrative agency and the charitable purposes of the Endowments. Hence, you conclude that there is no intent to influence administrative action as defined in the Act. With regard to the second, third, and fourth categories of public policy activities by the Endowments, we hold that the activities of: receiving /responding to requests for information or requests for funding submitted by state agencies; contacting administrative agency staff and providing information to them about the Endowments' activities and the types of programs the Endowments support for purposes of determining whether there are opportunities for collaborative grant making; and collaborating with state agencies on projects through public /private partnerships, would not, per se constitute lobbying. However, activity that would attempt to influence legislative action or administrative action would constitute lobbying, regardless of whether the lobbying effort would occur in the course of such activities. See, e.q., McGee, supra. For example, an effort to an agency's regulations, guidelines, or statements of policy in the course of these activities would constitute lobbying. The fifth category of public policy activities involves service by government officials on the Endowments' Advisory Boards. Factually, the Endowments convene Advisory Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 11 Boards /Committees which provide guidance and insight to the Endowments as to the types of programs and activities that the Endowments should be supporting. Members of the legislature and Secretaries of administrative departments may be asked to serve on these Advisory Committees. As to this category, you contend that the Endowments are not influencing legislative or administrative action; rather the governmental officials are influencing the grant making policies of the Endowments. We would agree generally with your position as to this category. We hold that under the facts which you have presented, having State officials or employees serve on the Endowments' Advisory Boards would not per se constitute lobbying under the Act. However, activity that would attempt to influence legislative action or administrative action would constitute lobbying, regardless of whether the activity would occur within the context of such service. See, e.q., McGee, supra. Te sixth category of public policy activities involves grants by the Endowments to organizations that lobby. Factually, the Endowments' grants to such organizations prohibit "lobbying" as it is defined for federal tax purposes, which you state would preclude influencing "legislative action" under the Act. With regard to lobbying as to "administrative action," the Endowments' grants neither prohibit nor require the funded organizations to use the funds for such purposes. You argue that the Endowments should not be attributed with any lobbying by the funded organizations because: (1) the Endowments do not specifically require that the grants be used for lobbying, and indeed, the funded organizations are contractually precluded from undertaking lobbying with respect to legislative action; (2) the funded organizations are not the Endowments' agents with respect to their actions, and the funded organizations may not act on behalf of the Endowments; (3) even if the Endowments were to have reason to believe that the grant funds made to advocacy organizations would be used for lobbying of administrative agencies, there is no requirement that the funds be used in that manner, but rather, the boards /management of the organizations receiving the grants determine the use of the funds. We parenthetically note that a grant recipient which uses a grant for lobbying and which otherwise meets the definition of "principal" is a principal under the Act, having undertaken the lobbying effort as its own mission. See, Gates, Opinion 99 -1002; Keltz, Opinion 99 -1004. When reporting under the Act, such a grantee would have to identify persons or entities which contributed more than 10% of the total resources received during the reporting period. See, Roth, Opinion 99 -1006; 65 Pa.C.S. §1305(b)(5). Depending upon the mathematical calculation, the requisite disclosure could include the identification of the grantor. As for whether the Endowments as grantors would be principals, we noted above that the giving of a grant to an advocacy organization which lobbies does not necessarily make the grantor a principal where the grant is not earmarked for lobbying purposes. However, the issue of whether any particular grant is for lobbying purposes is factually intensive and is to be decided on a case by case basis. You have not submitted any particular factual scenarios for review, and so our response on this particular issue is necessarily limited to the general guidance set forth herein. The propriety of the proposed conduct has only been addressed under the Act and derivatively the Ethics Act to the extent applicable; the applicability of any other statute, code, ordinance, regulation or other code of conduct has not been considered in that they do not involve an interpretation of the Act. IV. CONCLUSION: In determining whether private endowments which engage in various public policy activities are principals subject to the Lobbying Disclosure Act (Act), the State Ethics Duronio, 00 -1003 Page 12 Commission must interpret and enforce the Act based upon the provisions of the Act and the related Regulations. "Lobbying" includes efforts to influence legislative action or administrative action at any stage of the process, even where no formal action has been taken by the legislature or state agency. For an effort to constitute lobbying, it may either be for the purpose or with the foreseeable effect" of influencing legislative action or administrative action. The hosting of public policy forums would not per se constitute lobbying under the Act, even if State officials or employees would be present, where: such forums would not be open to the public; the debates would be general; specific legislation or administrative action would not be encouraged; and participants would not be requested to take action to influence legislation or administrative action. However, activity that would attempt to influence legislative action or administrative action would constitute lobbying, regardless of whether the activity would occur at such an event. An endowment's activities of: receiving /responding to requests for information or requests for funding submitted by state agencies; contacting administrative agency staff and providing information to them about the endowment's activities and the types of programs the endowment supports for purposes of determining whether there are opportunities for collaborative grant making; collaborating with state agencies on projects through public /private partnerships; or having State officials or employees serve on the endowment's advisory boards, would not, per se constitute lobbying. However, activity that would attempt to influence legislative action or administrative action would constitute lobbying, regardless of whether the lobbying effort would occur within the context of such activities. The giving of a grant by a private endowment to an advocacy organization which lobbies does not necessarily make the grantor a principal where the grant is not earmarked for lobbying purposes. The issue of whether any particular grant is for lobbying purposes is factually intensive and is to be decided on a case by case basis. Pursuant to Section 1308 of the Act, a requestor who truthfully discloses all material facts in a request for an advisory and who acts in good faith based upon a written opinion of the Commission issued to the requestor shall not be held liable for a violation of the Act. This Opinion is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, a party may request this Commission to reconsider its Opinion. The reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date of this Opinion. The party requesting reconsideration must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §39.1. By the Commission, Daneen E. Reese Chair