It actually rained yesterday morning. We were already out walking, down near the Kaaawa fire station, when the first rain hit. This was real rain, hard rain, a soaking rain that the plants needed, not the teasing sprinkles that we’ve been reduced to in recent weeks. Real rain that created little rivers running along Kamehameha Highway and left big puddles for us to negotiate on the rest of the way to the beach. But it also cleared the air, and with the very low tide and extremely light wind, it set up a beautiful morning down at the beach. Just click on this photo for more of our Tuesday morning.

It’s another two newspaper morning.

Yesterday the Star-Bulletin reported:

Housing fuels bankruptcies
Hawaii’s rate soars 30 percent as people struggle to pay bills amid mounting costs for basic items

Today’s Advertiser reports the same story with a different twist:

Bankruptcy filings up 46% over year earlier

• Home sales and median sale prices In Oahu Neighborhoods for June 2008

A closer look shows that the Star-Bulletin figure was based on comparing the 2008 total for the first 6 months with the prior year, while the Advertiser’s 46% increase was based on June’s single month total compared to a year ago.

The issue of Honolulu’s rail transit plan is a major election year issue with lots of money already being spent both pro and con, but I’m concerned that state election law isn’t really up to handling it all. In particular, it appears that there are loopholes which threaten to allow contributors to groups on either side confidential.

At first glance, the law is relatively straight forward. Groups “for or against any issue on the ballot” are considered noncandidate committees which have to meet registration and disclosure requirements.

Here’s the registration requirement:

A noncandidate committee shall file an organizational report within ten days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that amount to more than $1,000, in the aggregate, in a two-year election period; except that within the thirty day period prior to an election, a noncandidate committee shall file an organizational report within two days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that amount to more than $1,000, in the aggregate, in a two-year election period.

In addition to lots of information about the group, its officers, and when and how it was formed, the organizational report must include: “The name, address, occupation, and employer of each donor who has contributed an aggregate amount of more than $100 since the last election and the amount and date of deposit of each such contribution.”

But, and this is a big but, the commission says that requirements for ballot issue committees don’t kick in until and unless the issue is actually certified to be on the ballot.

And what about money contributed before the issue is certified, i.e., all the money being raised and spent now? Apparently this may be disputed turf. The law quoted above appears to indicate that the committee’s organizational report must include contributions received “since the last election”.

But in its guidance to ballot issue committees, the Campaign Spending Commission muddies the waters.

“In order to determine whether the threshold is met, contributions or expenditures are aggregated beginning on the date of certification of the issue.”

So a committee apparently could spend a million dollars before the issue is certified, but if they don’t make additional expenditures then they may not have to register or disclose anything. And if you gave to a committee before it could be considered a ballot issue committee, because the issue was not certified at the time, would those contributions have to be retroactively disclosed? Unclear.

There’s a further complication, of course, caused by the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow view of what constitutes an election-related expenditure. Groups that run ads taking positions for and against rail transit or Honolulu’s rail system without explicitly asking people to vote yes or no on the ballot question are likely to argue that they are simply engaging in free speech on an issue and are not subject to election law requirements.

I would guess that we’re going to see far less disclosure than we are advertising on both sides of the question.