TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION

---

ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION NO. 638

---

February 11, 2026

ISSUE

Whether asking questions of or requesting a formal written opinion from certain state officials, without suggesting an answer to the questions, would require registration under Chapter 305, Texas Government Code. (AOR-740)

SUMMARY

A request seeking the clarification of the operation of a law or to seek compliance with an existing law, without suggesting an answer, is not a communication to influence administrative or legislative action under Chapter 305 of the Government Code and would not require lobby registration.

FACTS

The requestor represents an entity that meets the statutory definition of a “foreign adversary” as that term is defined in Section 305.030 of the Government Code and intends to request clarification relating to a bill passed by the 89th Legislature that directly impacts the entity’s business practices. At issue is whether requesting a clarification from the bill author, the attorney general, or the relevant state agency, without suggesting an answer in any way, is considered a lobby communication.

ANALYSIS

Under newly enacted legislation, a person is prohibited from receiving compensation from a “foreign adversary,” “foreign adversary client,” or “foreign adversary political party” to communicate with state lawmakers or administrators to influence legislative or administrative action. Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 917 (H.B. 119), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2025, codified at Tex. Gov’t Code § 305.030(b). Under the same law, a person is also required to register as a lobbyist even if the person receives no compensation to make a “lobby communication,” on behalf of a foreign adversary. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 305.003(a)(3). A lobby communication is a direct communication with one or more members of the legislative or executive branch to influence legislation or administrative action. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 305.002(2-a).

The definition of “foreign adversary” includes not only foreign governments or persons designated as a foreign adversary by the U.S. secretary of commerce ¹ but also entities that are under the control, ownership, or influence of a foreign adversary. The definition also includes businesses that have their principal place of business in or that are organized under the laws of a foreign adversary—including a parent or subsidiary of a domestic business organization.

A communication to determine the scope or applicability of a law or policy without attempting to change or seek an exception to the existing law or policy is not a “lobby communication.”

The requestor states he would like to communicate on behalf of a foreign adversary with a legislator, the attorney general, or the relevant state agency, seeking an interpretation of the scope of the law, or for the purpose of achieving compliance with existing law. The requestor states he would not suggest what he believes is the correct interpretation when communicating with the state officials.

TEC rules currently provide that “certain compensation” is excluded “for the purposes of calculating the registration threshold under Government Code §305.003(a)(2).” 1 Tex. Admin. Code § 34.5. That rule expressly exempts:

• “requesting a written opinion that interprets a law, regulation, rule, policy, practice, or procedure administered by a state office or agency;” and
• “communicating for the purpose of achieving compliance with existing laws, rules, policies, and procedures.”

Id. at §34.5(a)(1), (4). Unlike other lobby communications, which require a person to receive a certain amount of compensation for lobbying before being required to register, uncompensated lobbying for a foreign adversary triggers lobby registration. Tex. Gov’t Code § 305.003(a)(2), (3). The requestor notes that the Rule 34 exempting certain types of communication from the compensation threshold specifically applies to §305.003(a)(2) (related to the compensation threshold), and “it is not clear at this time whether this type of conduct will also be exempt for the purposes of the newly enacted §305.003(a)(3).”

We believe the exceptions in Rule 34.5(a)(1) and (a)(4) would apply to the communications proposed by the requestor because such are not lobby communications.

Near the time of enactment of what is now Rule 34.5, the TEC issued advisory opinions interpreting whether certain communications would qualify as lobby communications under the statute. See generally Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. Nos. 16, 15, 14 (1992). The TEC opined that communications “for purposes of the compensation threshold, that certain activities are not communications to influence legislation or administrative action and are not required to be reported on registration forms or activity reports.” Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. No. 14 (1992). One such communication is a communication “for the purpose of compliance with existing laws, administrative rules, policies, and procedures, when there is no attempt to change or seek exceptions to such rules, policies, or procedures.” Id.

Near the time of enactment of what is now Rule 34.5, the TEC issued advisory opinions interpreting whether certain communications would qualify as lobby communications under the statute. See generally Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. Nos. 16, 15, 14 (1992). The TEC opined that communications “for purposes of the compensation threshold, that certain activities are not communications to influence legislation or administrative action and are not required to be reported on registration forms or activity reports.” Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. No. 14 (1992). One such communication is a communication “for the purpose of compliance with existing laws, administrative rules, policies, and procedures, when there is no attempt to change or seek exceptions to such rules, policies, or procedures.” Id

The rationale for adopting the rules exempting communications to ensure compliance with existing laws from the lobby compensation threshold is that such communications are not made to influence legislative or administrative action because there is no attempt to change or create an exception to existing law or policy. See Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. No. 15 (1992). However, communications meant to influence a change in a law or policy of general applicability is a lobby communication. See Tex. Ethics. Op. No. 89 (1992).

The requestor proposes to ask state officials about the current state of the law and how to comply with it, without suggesting what the answer should be. Under the TEC’s past opinions, a request seeking the clarification of the operation of a law or to seek compliance with an existing law is not a communication to influence administrative or legislative action under Chapter 305 of the Government Code. Therefore, the requestor would not be prohibited from making such a communication by Section 305.030(b) nor would such a communication, standing alone, trigger registration under Section 305.003(a)(3).