Here’s one of the comments received in response to Saturday’s post:

UPON reading and re-reading the anonymous and unverified comment, I am left asking what the difference is between a “fundraiser” and “political party”?

Is it illegal for a private businessman/citizen to host a party and invite politicos and political groupies?

When does social networking become a crime?

If campaign contributions weren’t made what’s the deal?

In other words, is it a crime if some wealthy person wants to hold a party and invite politicos?

Paragraph two is where the anonymous commentator loses me and contradicts.

If the “political party” were hosted by a prominent businessman, why would that person need the hotel venue, food, and alcohol to be paid for by lobbyists?

But don’t get me wrong. I see the danger of these secret “shindigs” and most likely your anonymous commentator is telling the truth. In this day and age when Hawaii has a huge federal law enforcement presence, local politicos better be careful.

Sounds like a fun party at the Pagoda, wish I could have been there.

Well, I’ll try tackling that from two sides.

Begin with the state’s ethics code. Here’s the provision relating to gifts.

§84-11 Gifts. No legislator or employee shall solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, any gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing, or promise, or in any other form, under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence the legislator or employee in the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action on the legislator’s or employee’s part.

So a party–entertainment and/or hospitality–is covered by the ethics code.

An ethics commission “quick guide on gifts” provides further discussion.

The first question is whether you can accept a gift. The State Ethics Commission looks at three factors:

1. Donor. Who is offering the gift to you? What is that person’s relationship to you? If you are directly regulating someone – that is, if you decide whether someone gets a permit, or funding, or a citation – then you generally should not accept anything from that person, regardless of its value. If the person giving the gift is a long-time personal friend who never does business with your state agency, that’s probably okay. This is usually the first question we ask – if the donor relationship creates a problem, we usually don’t even look at the second two factors.

2. Value. How much is the gift worth? Is someone giving you a pencil worth a few cents or a round of golf worth $100? The public should trust you to do your job with integrity; this trust may be lost if people see you taking lavish trips, eating fancy meals, or otherwise enjoying expensive things that are paid for by someone else.

3. State purpose. How will the State benefit if you accept the gift?

Further, the following section of the state ethics law (Section 84-11.5) requires gifts to be public disclosed in an annual report if (a) the gifts from a single source received during the year have an aggregate value “in excess of $200,” (b) the donor of the gifts has “interests that may be affected by official action or lack of action by the legislator or employee,” and (c) the gift or gifts is not otherwise exempt.

In the hypothetical situation described on Saturday, donors included lobbyists, interest groups and organizations that hire lobbyists, as well as those doing business with the state. For that reason, as their “quick guide” advises, “you generally should not accept anything fro that person, regardless of its value.”

I’ve heard elected officials defend taking gifts from lobbyists, saying “I’ve known him/her forever.” I don’t think that’s a defense that will fly.

Then there’s the “fair treatment” provision of the ethics law. Here’s the first part of that provision.

§84-13 Fair treatment. (a) No legislator or employee shall use or attempt to use the legislator’s or employee’s official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment, for oneself or others; including but not limited to the following:

(1) Seeking other employment or contract for services for oneself by the use or attempted use of the legislator’s or employee’s office or position;

(2) Accepting, receiving, or soliciting compensation or other consideration for the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or responsibilities except as provided by law….

When you’re invited to a party because you’re a legislator, it could be construed as using your official position to secure unwarranted privileges or treatment not available to the rest of us. Alternately, it might be seen as accepting a gift of hospitality. In either case, it will likely be seen as a problem.

Notice that these ethics provisions apply to public officials and employees, not to those who might organize such events. And laws regulating lobbyists, as well as our campaign spending laws, raise different concerns.

As you can see, it looks like I’ll have to return several times to answer the questions posed in that comment.