This has definitely not been a landmark year for good-government bills — though it’s shaping up to be a pretty darn good year for elected officials.
Biting the dust were bills to prohibit campaign donations from executives or others, including relatives, with ties to companies holding state contracts; and to fund or support public campaign financing. Preserved was the “pay to play” status quo at the Legislature that props up entrenched politicos who can sway contracts to the detriment of the public interest. Auwe!
Meanwhile, legislators treated themselves to a nice perk, making law that allows campaign funds to be spent for child care; graciously accepted “automatic” raises amounting to a total 48% pay increase over six years; and exempted themselves from tighter rules on lobbying that would have required disclosure when the elected officials were the targets for persuasion. Auwe, again.
Let’s begin with bennies legislators granted themselves:
>> Senate Bill 1202, already signed into law by the governor as Act 19. It allows use of campaign donations to pay for child care or dependent care (such as for an aging parent), so long as the care is not provided by immediate family. Presented as a move to level the playing field for candidates with limited incomes, it received supportive testimony, and Campaign Spending Commission opinions already sanction campaign fund use in this way. However, no limits are placed on what proportion of donations are used for this purpose — and this is an unwelcome addition to political “slush funds” that already allow candidates to pass money among themselves. Hawaii’s campaign fund rules need to be tightened, not in effect loosened.
>> Then there are those raises, beginning with a front-loaded, 32% pay bump that takes effect automatically in July. The process of determining raises via an “independent” commission appointed by those who would benefit from raises is a sham, and in cases such as this, a disgrace. Though state funds for arts, housing and alternative energy development were strictly rationed this year, legislators blithely accepted raises — a salary bump from about $74,000 today to $97,896 in 2027 — without any vote required. This system must change, with truly independent arbiters making salary recommendations, plus an on-the-record vote required to put them in effect.
>> House Bill 412 was one of the more blatant power plays the Legislature turned to its own advantage. Now consigned to the governor, it requires people who advocate for significant contracts or projects with the the governor, staff or agency directors to register and report as lobbyists. That’s appropriate — but legislators changed the bill to excise themselves from the requirement. This omission needs to be remedied next year.
As for the sad fate of good-government bills, two significant ones to address money in politics, HB 371 and HB 370, both died in the last hours of the session.
>> HB 371 would have closed the gaping loophole allowing government contractors, executives, officers and close family members to contribute to political campaigns while holding public contracts. Calling it “a commonsense anti-corruption measure,” HAPA (the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action) rightly commented, “Weakening this bill would send the message that pay-to-play politics is acceptable in Hawaii.” Legislators shelved it completely. The public must persist next year in severing this unacceptable link between campaign donations and public funding.
>> HB 370 would have added funding to Hawaii’s public campaign financing program — an alternative to candidates’ reliance on big private donors — and raised the limit for publicly financed candidate expenditures by 20%. Failing to act for the public’s benefit, the Legislature deep-sixed it on the last day. That leaves public campaign supports stagnant. Spending limits have not been raised over the past two decades, draining this program of its utility.
If public support for candidates had been increased, HAPA predicted “more viable publicly funded campaigns, more grassroots candidates, and less influence from wealthy donors.” Voters must agitate for law that furthers these aims in the years to come.
