It didn’t take House Judiciary Chairman Jon Riki Karamatsu very long to prompt Common Cause Hawaii to raise an alarm.
Yesterday Karamatsu’s committee quickly passed HB 2249, which he introduced, that would remove certain restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. It is a single-referral bill, meaning that this was its only review by a committee in the House before it moves forward for a full House vote.
Rushing this single-referral bill forward is unusual, especially given this year’s shorter legislative session. Bills with multiple referrals have quick deadlines to meet in order to stay alive, and typically these single referral bills are held until the more time-sensitive measures are considered. But, for reasons of his own, Karamatsu moved this bill immediately despite opposition from the Campaign Spending Commission, Common Cause, and others.
In her testimony, Common Cause Hawaii’s Nikki Love said: ” The existing law is clear and simple. The question now is: Why change this law?”
Unfortunately, at least as of this morning, there was no testimony regarding this bill available on the House web site, so it’s hard to say why proponents are backing it.
Karamatsu is a declared candidate for Lt. Governor, with another fundraiser coming up on February 18. Probably unrelated, but worth noting in any case.
The bill does two things.
First, it removes a prohibition on political contributions or expenditures by anyone obtaining government contracts if the contracts are won through competitive bidding. The restriction would still apply to contractors with sold-source contracts or contracts exempt from competitive bidding.
Second, it eliminates the restriction on contributions to political parties by government contractors. All contractors, not only those who got their contracts via competitive bidding, will again be able to give large amounts to party committees.
I can see room to debate on the first provision. The restrictions aimed at contractors were prompted by the old problem of “pay to play” politics, where businesses are expected to become campaign contributors before being considered for government contracts. Reliance on competitive bidding is supposed to largely eliminate the discretionary award of contracts that allows pay-to-play, obviating the need to apply the restriction to competitively bid contracts.
On the other hand, there are many ways to get around the constraints of competitive bidding. Writing specifications narrowly to steer contracts to particular bidders is one commonly used technique, something the Hannemann administration has used very effectively with the city’s rail transit project. If this and other techniques are believed to undermine the effectiveness of competitive bidding in ending the pay to play, then keeping the restriction on all government contractors makes sense.
But it is a balancing act between the free speech rights of contractors and the right of the public to be free of political corruption. The law, as written, applies to anyone, even individuals, doing business with the state or those working under personal services contracts, and restricting political rights of any individuals has to be done carefully and as narrowly as possible to achieve the desired ends. I don’t know that you could call the existing law a narrowly-defined restriction.
Removing the prohibition on contributions to political parties by government contractors, including those with non-bid or other noncompetitive contracts, seems to me to be simply a back-door way to allow them to put big bucks behind favored candidates in a gubernatorial election year. Under existing law, a person can contribute up to $25,000 to a political party during a two-year election cycle, far above the applicable limit for contributions to individual candidates.
Corporations are not people. They should not be able to contribute to campaigns or parties.
Ian, you’ve obviously given some thought to this. What would be your concept of campaign spending that would be in the public’s interest?
By the way, are you working at the capitol again this year?
Haven’t been able to locate the post but I think he “disclosed” that he is.
Still chuckling at the “sold-source contract” typographical error. Or at the clever joke, whichever is the case.
I sure wish I could claim to have intended to write it that way.
Thank you, Mr. Freud!
Sometimes single referral bills are heard with multiple referrals because they relate to the same subject matter. That may or may not explain why this single referral bill was heard so “early.”
This bill was drafted/introduced prior to the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling on campaign contributions (not that the two deal directly with the same issue anyway) so that can’t explain it.
The votes in committee were as follows: 9 Ayes: Representative(s) Karamatsu, Ito, Mizuno, B. Oshiro, Souki, Tsuji; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) McKelvey, Wakai, Marumoto; 1 Noes: Representative(s) Belatti; and 6 Excused: Representative(s) Cabanilla, Carroll, Herkes, Luke, Morita, Thielen. Tupically, the ayes may just be supporting the Chair; the reservations/noes are more revealing.
The written testimony is now available. There are 3 pieces, one from the Campaign Spending Commssion, none in support.