A story broadcast Friday on KHON’s 6 p.m. news reported that Gov. Lingle’s contributions to Duke Aiona’s campaign exceeded the amount allowed by law.
I wasn’t sure that I heard it correctly, and had to wait until it appeared on the station’s web site. KHON reported:
Governor Lingle personally donated $3,000 to the campaign and her campaign committee donated an additional $3,000.
But the campaign spending commission says the two contributions should actually count as one, so the amount donated is more than the $3,000 individual donation limit.
The problem with the story, of course, is that there is no $3,000 individual donation limit.
The individual contribution limit for candidates running for statewide office–which means governor and lt. governor–is $6,000 in any election period. For candidates for governor, the election period runs from the 2006 general election through the 2010 general election.
But state law does provide that contributions from any person and those from another entity they control must be counted as if they were from the same person. So my guess is that Lingle actually made two $6,000 contributions, one from personal funds and one from her campaign committee, which when combined was twice the amount allowed by law.
If Aiona considered $3,000 from each source “excess”, that might explain where KHON mistakenly got the idea that there is a $3,000 contribution limit.
Contribution limits are one of the basic parts of our election law, and I’m surprised no one at the station noticed the fundamental error in this story.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another problem?
According to AP: “The issue couldn’t be verified with the (state campaign spending) commission because Friday was a furlough day.”
ouch. this is a sad and weak state of state affairs.
i can’t wait for this election to end and for Aiona to vanish.
media outlets are corporations that print and broadcast viewpoints every day
I am not sure why rich people can spend as much as they want to own these entities but at the same time we put limits on how much money a person can spend on buying access to these outlets
the 1st Amendment is just so confusing
I’m curious to know why the media has not really delved into why Aiona did not get another term as a judge. Or maybe you folks did and I missed the story. Judges retire when they hit 70 or if the Judicial Selection Commission declines to reappoint — although the latter is really only a face saving customary gesture because its not a true retirement. Otherwise, judges who resign their office do so for specific reasons: burn-out, pay-too-low, some kind of political statement, etc.,. I don’t recall Aiona resigning his office. Why hasn’t this been investigated more thoroughly and explained? People ought to know if he was not renewed by the Judicial Selection Commission since he extensively uses his judicial background in between his Christian slogans (at least on the stuff online).
He himself says it was because the pay was too low to take care of his family. If there was evidence that he had been forced out, I think the Abercrombie Campaign would have found it.