While public interest and concern about the role of big money in elections seems to be very high, participation in Hawaii’s $3 tax checkoff that funds the Campaign Spending Commission has been steadily eroding.
The amount the checkoff brings in has fallen by just over 60% over the past two decades.
Remember the $3 checkoff? State income tax returns include a simple box asking if the taxpayer wants $3 of their taxes to go to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund, which provides the operating budget for the commission as well as partial public financing to qualifying candidates who agree to limit the amount they spend campaigning.
The $3 checkoff doesn’t add $3 to the amount of tax you owe. All it does it earmark $3 to the election fund. And yet fewer and fewer taxpayers are choosing to participate.
The fund brought in $499,000 in 1992, but revenue dropped to less than $200,000 last year.
It’s not a pretty picture, as this chart shows.
![[text]](http://ilind.net/misc /2013/hecf.jpg)
And here are the year by year numbers.
Year Revenue
1991 $395,270
1992 $499,092
1993 $407,314
1994 $361,494
1995 $365,646
1996 $303,640
1997 $305,804
1998 $280,334
1999 $260,596
2000 $253,058
2001 $215,950
2002 $244,664
2003 $181,832
2004 $265,188
2005 $220,490
2006 $186,312
2007 $220,406
2008 $190,480
2009 $205,040
2010 $216,561
2011 $223,380
2012 $197,321
The decline in funding has left the Campaign Spending Commission strapped for resources, which threatens to reduce its ability to enforce the state’s campaign spending restrictions. It has also at least temporarily halted the Hawaii County program of public financing available to candidates for county council. By law, the public financing program is suspended if the balance in the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund falls below $3.5 million.
At last count, it has fallen below $3 million.
So what can be done to increase public awareness of and participation in the $3 checkoff?
Share your ideas here, and I’ll pass them on to folks at the Campaign Spending Commission.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Recommendations for readers of this blog:
1. If you use TurboTax, it automatically checks the Campaign Spending box “No”. Change it manually and contact TurboTax to object.
2. If someone else does your taxes for you, check that box before you sign–it is likely that the tax preparer has checked “No” on your behalf. Talk with your tax preparer.
My experience is that all professional tax preparers invariably check no. What is the rationale behind this?
I think it’s set to “no” as a default in many tax programs.
What can we do about that?
Given Dj’s comment, perhaps a good place to start is with an article in professional publications such as Kala, which is put out by the Hawaii Society of CPAs. It’s probably easier to get taxpreparers to check the “yes” box than to try to change national software.
“The $3 checkoff doesn’t add $3 to the amount of tax you owe.” Maybe people think they have to pay it. (I know, it’s clear on the form.)
Let the legislature fund the Campaign Spending Commission and put the $3 toward the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund, where it says the $3 will go.
Whether or not Hawaii’s campaign spending laws are enforced should not be left to TurboTax. If there is a Commission, it can be funded like any other.
Of course, this assumes that legislators want to have a campaign spending commission breathing down their necks…
I may have not read the instructions carefully enough, but I do not recall anything saying the $3 would fund the Campaign Spending Commission. I thought it would go into the campaign funds of individual candidates, with me having no say over which candidates.
Oh, yes, I’ve heard zz’s reasoning from others before! How could CSC get some publicity to explain this? Whatever happened to public service announcements?
There is confusion, obviously given the posts, myself included, as to what it does and is it an extra charge. I’d think a good strategy would be for the open gov/election reform ngo’s, and blogs like this or other media, to mount a public service campaign in March of each year reminding people about that option and dispelling any myths. Get it on perry and price once a week before taxes are due. Most people likely have no idea what that check box is even about or why it is important despite the clear language. Make it a moral imperative. What, you don’t check that box? Awue! 🙂
I always check “no.” I have a problem grasping the concept that if we volunteer our own money to the slimeballs who dominate the candidate pools, somehow this will make the process less slimy. All of our $3 donations could never offset the billions of corporate dollars that control our elections. Our candidates who win, of whichever party, win because they are bought and paid for by the wealthiest organizations and people in the land. I should throw them a few bucks too? What do you think I am, a complete sap?
Well, since Isaac Choy is both a prominent CPA and a member of the House, maybe this needs to be brought to his attention, both in terms of changing CPA’s default “no” mode and in terms of legislative action to either educate the public (e.g. changing instructions, forms, etc.) or properly funding the CSC.
“. . . properly funding the CSC.” After considering this a bit more, I think proper funding is the better solution. As noted, there is too much confusion with the current process, and the result is that the fund is too low to continue with the pilot project on the Big Island.
Agree… JUST FUND CSC. Why should it be a check box? It’s not like on electric bill: “do you want $3 to go to school solar…? and it ADDS to your bill. Maybe THAT’S the confusion, because i DO get bills with a check off to a charitable cause and it DOES add to my bill. Most people do not understand “dialing for dollars” by politicians. It’s unbelievable that our elected politicians to US Congress all(?) have aides dialing for dollars DAILY, all day…