Two recent broadcast ads calling on Governor Lingle to end school furloughs illustrate the failure of Hawaii’s lobbyist law to cover executive branch lobbying.
The ads are referenced in a Star-Bulletin story that shows up in an information item on the agenda for today’s meeting of the State Ethics Commission. The February 6, 2010 “Kokua Line” column responds to a question about disclosure of the sponsors of the ads.
The ads can be viewed at the Save Our Schools Hawaii web site.
Campaign Spending laws, which require disclosure on election-related ads, don’t apply in this case, according to Kokua Line.
Because the ads did not involve someone running for office (Lingle is not running for re-election or for another office this year), the state’s campaign disclosure laws do not apply, said Barbara Wong, executive director of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission.
If a candidate were involved, the ad would have to disclose the name and address of the person or group that paid for it, as well as say whether it was running with or without authority of the candidate, Wong said.
In some cases, the state’s lobbyist law could require disclosure, according to Susan Yoza, the Ethics Commission’s deputy director.
“We define lobbying to mean communicating either directly or soliciting others to communicate with someone in the legislative or executive branch on a legislative or administrative action,” she said.
But don’t get too excited about the possibilities.
The lobbyist law further defines “administrative action”.
“Administrative action” means the proposal, drafting, consideration, amendment, enactment, or defeat by any administrative agency of any rule, regulation, or other action
governed by section 91-3.
In other words, unless the particular executive branch action involves an existing or proposed rule subject to Section 91-3 of Hawaii’s administrative procedures act, lobbying of executive branch officials is unregulated.
And these ads, because they target the governor and not members of the legislature, would not be considered lobbying under current state law. It’s a huge loophole in both regulation and public disclosure.
House and Senate bills to close this loophole were introduced during the 2009 session. HB 1007 and SB 1649 would have extended the definition of lobbying to include attempts to influence “executive, legislative, or administrative action”. Both bills include the same definition.
“Executive action” means the proposal, consideration, or defeat of any act, bill, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, or any other matter pending or proposed before the governor or lieutenant governor, or other state official.
Both bills died without even getting a public hearing.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
speaking of education, did you hear about this?
“Utah State Sen. Chris Buttars on February 1st appeared before the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee and suggested that Utah schools eliminate the twelfth grade and get rid of busing for high school students to save $60 million. He said this grade was a waste of time for most students and that many squander away this year, which costs the state millions of dollars.”
How ’bout the broadcast ad in which the Governor intones about her profound legal obligation to review the Rail EIS in depth and do what’s best for us, the State, blah, blah, blah.
That woulda been a good tune if she’d done it for the SuperFerry but can’t be taken seriously now, even if you and I both abhor the prospect of an elevated monstrosity cutting off and blighting the waterfront as viwed from town, and vice versa.
More to the point, who do you suppose paid for that piece of Lenny Klompus-spun propaganda? I asked but got no response. I won’t be holding my breath that we’ll find out anytime soon.
But if Lingle should have taken the EIS seriously for the Superferry but did not, isn’t it good that this time around she appears to be doing her job? One out of two is better than derailing twice. At this point, I don’t care about her motives. I just want her to follow the law and take the environmental requirements seriously.
Well, in theory, you’re right, Ian. I mean, if she does the right thing, who cares if she does it for the wrong reason (e.g., politics)?
So, I will withhold judgment until I see what she actually does once she receives the EIS. But, based on what she’s done/said to date, I’m not optimistic about either the process she will follow or the credibility of the outcome.
And by the way, are you saying that, because you agree with her planned course of action (even if it’s for the wrong reason), we don’t need or have a right to know who paid for the media used to tell us that she’s going to, well, do her duty?
Nope. I didn’t comment on the “who paid” issue.