I haven’t written about campaign finance issues for a while. But now that election season is in full swing, I recalled that a friend recently asked me a question about candidates, often elected officials, who use their campaign funds to contribute to other candidates.

By law, campaign funds can only be spent for limited purposes, primarily for the election of the candidate whose campaign committee received the contribution. Passing that money on to another candidate appears to be contrary to the law.

But…there’s an exception allowing for the purchase of “not more than two tickets for each event held by another candidate or committee,” whether it is technically a fundraiser or not.

I hadn’t previously thought about this much, so I took a quick look at contributions to candidates during this election cycle up through June 30, the latest data available for download. This probably isn’t complete, because I searched for contributions from any committee named “friends of…”. There could be other candidate committee names that I missed.

How much money was transferred from one candidate to another so far during 2023-2024, through the end of June?

I really didn’t know what to expect, but I was surprised–shocked, perhaps–by the answer.

By my quick count, the total was $189,194 and a few cents.

Here’s a summary.

First, here is a list of candidates who have spent $5,000 or more buying tickets for other candidate’s events.

Gil Keith-Agaran, who served as Judiciary chair in the House and Senate, and later as vice-chair of the powerful Senante Ways and Means Committee, spent far more than any other candidate supporting others. He resigned from the Senate a year ago to concentrate on his role as a Maui attorney involved in Lahaina fire litigation.

He used campaign funds to buy tickets to other candidate’s events for years, often spending $1,000-$2,000 at a time, and spreading his money around to numerous candidates. He has continued since leaving office, as he liquidates his campaign committee’s accumulated bank balance.

Rep. Nadine Nakamura, who appears to have her eye on the position of House Speaker, spent less money on other candidates but spread her influence just as far, parceling out $300-$500 to a couple of dozen campaigns.

Then here are the candidates who received a total of $5,000 or more from other candidates.

If you want to look at the full lists, here are links to donors and recipients

My conclusion is simple. The legislature created a simple but significant loophole that, in part, has been applied in a manner that nullifies a fundamental tenet of Hawaii’s campaign spending law.

It works like this.

A basic element of state campaign law is that “[c]ampaign funds shall not be used: (1) To support the campaigns of candidates other than the candidate with which they are directly associated….” So you’re not allowed to raise money for your own campaign, and then spend it to support a friend or ally.

But there’s an exception to the rule, allowing candidate committees to “purchase not more than two tickets for each event held by another candidate or committee, regardless of whether the event constitutes a fundraiser as defined in section 11-342….”

The Campaign Spending Commission has struggled with the issue because the law, as written, does not set a maximum amount allowed for the purchase of these tickets. Only that they have to be “tickets” for admission to the event.

In a 2010 opinion, the commission said a candidate could not pay to enter another candidate’s event where a contribution was requested, but tickets weren’t required. The commission advised that the law specifically authorizes the purchase of two tickets, and contributions in the absence of tickets are not allowed.

But in the same opinion, the commission also ruled that if a fundraiser sets no specific ticket price, but instead lists a range of prices, $50-$2,000 per person, then a candidate is free to purchase two tickets at any of the listed amounts because the law “does not place a limit on the price of the two tickets.”

The commission doesn’t appear to have revisited that opinion.

It seems legitimate to allow the purchase of two tickets because appearing at a fundraiser organized by another candidate is a form of “meet & greet” campaigning. But by allowing the purchase of two tickets at the maximum price, rather than the minimum ticket price, it seems to me that the expenditure is no longer justified simply as a routine cost of campaigning, and becomes instead a prohibited expenditure in support of a campaign other than the one “directly associated” with the donor’s campaign.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read enough court decisions to understand the process of statutory interpretation.

Hawaii courts are clear: “Statute should be so construed as to make it consistent in all its parts and so that effect may be given to every section, clause or part of it.”

In this case, the primary directive is that a candidate can only make expenditures directly related to their own campaign, subject to an exception allowing the purchase of two tickets to another candidate’s event or fundraiser.

I would argue the commission’s 2010 opinion allowing purchase of tickets at the highest price in a range of ticket prices improperly elevates the exception priority over the rule, and that limiting the purchase of fundraiser tickets to the minimum price would be the proper interpretation of the statute ensuring that the primary purpose is not overridden and lost.

A challenge to the commission’s interpretation of the provision would be interesting.