A Senate bill scheduled for a vote this morning would require media companies to report annual sources of income to the state attorney general — along with names of any donors — that would be disclosed publicly.

Senate Bill 1602 does not limit the disclosure requirement to Hawaii media and there is no explanation for why the yearly financial and tax information is necessary.

State Sen. Lynne DeCoite, who introduced SB 1602, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It would require income tax returns and a list of each organizations’ “amounts and sources of income, excluding income from advertisements; provided that the statement shall include donations and names of donors” — and require the state Attorney General’s Office to publish the information on its website.

Only two Hono­lulu media organizations solicit and accept donations — Hawaii Public Radio and Civil Beat. Civil Beat did not respond to a request for comment, nor did any of Honolulu’s television stations.

Jose Fajardo, Hawaii Public Radio’s president and general manager, wrote in a statement that, “We are disturbed by any attempt to erode any measure of freedom of the press. At Hawaii Public Radio, we are fortunate to enjoy the support of more than 15,000 donors. We believe in transparency, and we share extensive information about our finances on our website at hawaiipublicradio.org. We also respect the privacy of our donors who choose to remain anonymous.”

Two other bills specifically target the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, identified only as “the newspaper” in SB 218 and its companion bill, House Bill 108.

They were introduced on behalf of the City and County of Honolulu and would allow “government agencies to publish public notices on their official websites as an alternative to publishing them in the newspaper.”

Previous Legislatures also have attempted to reduce newspaper income by eliminating the requirement that legal notices be published in the Star-Advertiser and its predecessors, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser.

SB 1602 would require financial disclosure for all media and is up for a vote today by the Senate committees on energy, economic development, which DeCoite chairs, and commerce and consumer protection, chaired by Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole.

Keohokalole declined to speculate on the motivations behind SB 1602 but said, “There are a number of issues that are concerning (about the bill). There is some definite provocative language in there.”

Several former television journalists serve in the Legislature, including state Sen. Brenton Awa, (R, Kaneohe-­Laie-Mokuleia), who still works as an independent journalist producing video stories about his district that he posts on his Instagram account.

Awa raised $12,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to buy professional-­grade video equipment following his firing from KITV, where he worked as a reporter and anchor.

Awa said he has no issue with providing information on his journalism sources of income. He said that DeCoite (D, East and Upcountry Maui-Molokai-Lanai) told Awa that she introduced SB 1602 on behalf of a constituent.

Colin Moore, director of the University of Hawaii’s Public Policy Center, said that SB 1602 is clearly unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantees of press freedom.

“It’s just an odd bill because it’s not clear what the purpose is,” Moore said. “It’s just super strange. It excludes advertisements, which is how most news organizations fund themselves.”

Moore said current and previous efforts by the Legislature to target media finances happen because “the Legislature always has a tense relationship with the media and I think sometimes they use their power to go after the media because of what they’ve printed,” Moore said. “Thank God for the First Amendment or we’d see a lot more of this.”

Stirling Morita, president of the Hawaii chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, wrote in opposition to SB 1602 that the bill “not only is inappropriate, but unconstitutional as well.”

“There are no limits in the definition so would this apply to the Los Angeles Times, CBS and/or radio chains as well as union newsletters?” Morita wrote.

“… Since there is no valid purpose, the bill cannot be used to override the First Amendment rights of media companies,” he wrote. “This measure is defective from start to finish.”