Great reporting today by Civil Beat’s Blaze Lovell (“Choy Had Been Working For Years With Feds On Legislative Bribery Case“).
Lovell was able to reach Choy’s attorney, Michael J. Green.
Choy’s attorney, Michael Green, said he and Choy have been involved with the federal investigation for years, but would not say when exactly Choy began cooperating with the FBI or if other legislators or public officials may be caught in this bribery probe. Green noted that his client has not been charged with a crime yet, but said that the investigation is still ongoing.
I’m not sure which part of Green’s statement is most interesting. That the investigation has been underway “for years,” or that “the investigation is still ongoing”? Either way, if federal agents have been working this case for years, and it’s ongoing, then the real question is who else will be caught in their net? We just have to wait and see, I suppose.
Lovell’s Civil Beat story took a closer look at public contracts won by Choy’s primary company, H2O Process Services, and examines the nexus between campaign contributions and these state and county contracts.
Meanwhile, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s Peter Boylan took his own look at the contracts (“Hawaii political donor received almost $6 million in contracts“).
Milton J. Choy, the wastewater treatment and industrial machinery executive at the center of a federal public corruption probe, has donated $160,150 to state and county lawmakers since 2014 and received nearly $6 million in government contracts.
Boylan reported Choy, employees, and related individuals contributed a total of “$268,046 to candidates for Hawaii office since 2014.”
I reported a higher figure for total contributions from Choy-related parties yesterday, $356,295.
Here’s how I came up with that number. First, I downloaded the latest version of the data set containing contributions to state and local candidates reported to the Campaign Spending Commission, and then opened it using Filemaker Pro, a Mac database program. Now I had to search for contributions. I started with Choy’s name. Then I looked up state business registration records and added the names of Choy-related companies, looking first for any donations made by the companies directly. Then I added all donations that were made by officers of Choy’s companies, as listed in business registration records, as well as any donors that listed one of Choy’s companies as their employer. The next step was to backtrack and add each of the addresses that had come up so far, which turned up family members or related individuals using the same home or business addresses.
This method may overestimate the contributions that Choy was able to influence and steer toward favored candidates. However, it seems to me a good basis for further analysis of the contributions through additional reporting.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Here’s how I came up with that number.”
Thank you for your explanation, Ian. It is time consuming to determine the source of contributions. Do you know how the Campaign Spending Commission’s website compares with others as far as the search feature goes?
I work almost exclusively by downloading the complete data set and using it rather than the web site’s tools. So I haven’t really tested them out that much.
The biggest problem is cleaning the data. If I made a contribution, it might appear a “Ian Lind,” “Ian Y. Lind,” “Ian Y Lind” (no period), “Ian Yonge Lind,” or even I. Lind. And contributions would appear separately. To get a total, I have to go through and do my own rough cleaning. First, I sort by contributor’s names during the period. Then I go through and clean up the names of major contributors. It’s straightforward but tedious. I couldn’t possibly do it for all contributors. And I haven’t figured out how to do it so that it carries over to the next reporting period. I’m sure there’s a way, but it has eluded me. Same thing with PAC or corporate names, they also appear with many variations.
Civil Beat, has extensively covered information pertaining to these investigations for years. Leading up to the final conclusion.
That may snare a former Honolulu Mayor and sitting Governor. Senate Majority Leadership has no love loss for Ige, and Caldwell is damaged goods. The three legged Governor’s race seems be a Primary between Cayetano, Kahele and Green. Women vs Men.
The coy obfuscation of Choy’s lawyer being interviewed on Hawaii News Now today was hilarious.
He wouldn’t confirm that Choy is Person A, or whether Choy is cooperating with authorities, and emphasized that Choy has not been charged with any crime. Note that he didn’t say “yet” or clarify whether the feds have indicated Choy is even a potential target, or have perhaps politely requested that he cooperate.
Yes, it’s entirely possible that Choy, or Person A, began participating in a federal bribery investigation of state lawmakers out of the goodness of his heart, or because he felt extorted by big bad Kalani English.
But if that’s the case, you’ll be invited to my hat-eating party.
Thanks for your continued research.
A point to bear in mind with a US Federal sting is who they go after – and to wonder why. Why might they only approach five selected people from among 100s? This doesn’t excuse corruption, but recognize Feds select relatively small problems and dodge responsibility for their own much bigger crimes (for example, Red Hill pollution; harboring Ferdinand Marcos & his Philippine booty; annexing Hawai’i without treaty and grabbing lands & wealth, etc).