Category Archives: lobbyists

Reporting expenses for lobbying the special session

4 Replies

What do you think–are there groups whose activities for or against the same-sex marriage bill constitute lobbying that should be publicly disclosed early in 2014?

It’s not just individual lobbyists who are required to report. Organizations may also have to make public dislcosures of their activities if they engage in lobbying.

Here’s the advice given by the State Ethics Commission as the special session started.

According to the commission:

“Lobbying” is defined as “communicating directly or through an agent, or soliciting others to communicate” with a legislator for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation. As defined, “lobbying” includes urging members of the public to communicate with legislators (sometimes called “grassroots lobbying”).

The commission then listed specific activities that “may” constitute reportable lobbying expenses.

• Preparing and distributing flyers or mailers “encouraging members of the public to contact their legislators to support or oppose legalizing same sex marriage.

• Producing or paying for media ads for or against the proposed legislation, whether broadcast spots on radio or television, newspaper ads, or online posts.

• Organizing sign-waving or rallies for or against the issue.

Groups would be required to file a disclosure if they spend $750 or more during a six month period on any or all of these activities.

Anybody want to a list of groups most likely to trigger the reporting requirements?

Flyer opposing same-sex marriage could trigger lobbying disclosure

8 Replies

A Hawaii News Now story by Mileka Lincoln broadcast yesterday put a spotlight on a misleading flier mailed to residents in Rep. Linda Ichiyama’s House district (“Same-sex marriage critics working to rally opposition“).

The mailer reads “Hawai’i’s state legislature may soon vote to legalize same-sex marriage without your input, Rep. Linda Ichiyama may vote yes.” It goes on to urge recipients to contact Rep. Ichiyama and ask her to vote no to same-sex marriage.

In a statement, Ichiyama describes the flyer as containing “half-truths and misinformation about the proposed same-sex marriage bill. For example, the flyer states that churches can be “forced” to conduct same-sex marriages “even if it violates their beliefs.” The draft same-sex marriage bill specifically protects religious freedom and ensures that churches may refuse to perform same-sex marriages for any reason.”

The story then veers of into a discussion of whether or not the flyer violates campaign spending laws.

Nowhere does it indicate who the mailer is from, but campaign spending commission officials say that’s not illegal because only advertisements that call for the support or defeat of specific ballot issues or candidates require disclosure.

“There’s really no message calling for Rep. Ichiyama’s defeat or election and it doesn’t concern itself with a ballot issue. Same-sex marriage issue is not a ballot issue,” explained Gary Kam, the Campaign Spending Commission’s General Counsel.

Kam says the purpose of campaign disclosure laws are to educate voters.

“Basically disclosures are one of the only things we have to keep the public informed on where the money is coming from when it comes to candidates and issues and the message that is being given by the ads,” Kam explained.

But Lincoln was simply on the wrong track. The flyer isn’t campaign material, but does fall under the state’s lobbyists law.

First of all, it clearly falls within the definition of “lobbying” spelled out in Chapter 97 HRS:

“Lobbying” means communicating directly or through an agent, or soliciting others to communicate, with any official in the legislative or executive branch, for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action or a ballot issue.

The individuals who prepared and mailed the flyer could be required to register as lobbyists with the State Ethics Commission “within 5 days of becoming a lobbyist” if they spent “in excess of five hours” or more than $750 on the flyers or related activities.

In addition, whoever paid for the flyers and their distribution will also be required to publicly disclose that spending by filing a “statement of expenditures” with the State Ethics Commission if the total amount spent was at least $750.

Failure to file register or file required reports could face an administrative fine of up to $500 for each violation.

Last year, the ethics commission fined the Hawaii Catholic Conference and Hawaii Family Forum a total of $3,000 for failing to properly disclose lobbying expenditures made in opposition to same-sex marriage.

But that action came long after the fact, drawing criticism from some quarters.

Unfortunately, the existing deadlines for lobbyist disclosures do not provide timely disclosure to the public. For example, spending for or against the Abercrombie administration’s marriage bill that will be considered during a special legislative session later this month does not have to be made public until a report due on January 31, 2014, far too late to inform the public about the groups trying to influence the legislative outcome.

In addition, the ethics commission does not have the resources to proactively intervene to assure that lobbyists are registered and organizations are aware of the responsibility to (eventually) disclose their spending.

Law doesn’t prohibit religious lobbying against same-sex marriage

3 Replies

Last year, the State Ethics Commission fined the Hawaii Catholic Conference and Hawaii Family Forum for violating the state’s lobbyist law by failing to file certain disclosure reports and also failing to disclose certain expenditures. With the issue of same-sex marriage back on the front burner, the issue of lobbying and public disclosure by religious opponents could again become a problem.

For example, a reader emailed to point out that the New Hope Christian Fellowship is using its Facebook page to urge followers to contact their legislators and urge them to vote against any same-gender marriage.

Is this lobbying? And does it raise legal issues?

Lobbying, under both federal and state rules, includes urging others to contact legislators directly regarding specific legislation, so New Hope’s Facebook post would certainly meet the definition of lobbying.

But that doesn’t necessarily raise any red flags.

IRS regulations allow religious organizations to do limited lobbying as long as it doesn’t make up “a substantial part” of the organization’s activities. New Hope’s communication with their members urging them to lobby their elected officials could clearly not be considered “substantial” in relation to the group’s overall activities, so they appear to be in the clear on that front.

State law requires registration and/or reporting by individual lobbyists and organizations that hire lobbyists. Individuals who “for pay or other consideration” lobbies for more than five hours in a month, or spends more than $750 in a reporting period, would be required to register and disclose their spending.

Once again, New Hope wouldn’t meet that requirement unless one or more of its representatives are actively lobbying (or urging others to lobby) for at least five hours in any month or exceeds the $750 expenditure threshold. If printed versions of the Facebook lobbying instructions were prepared and distributed, for example, those costs could trigger the lobbying requirements, but right now it’s only speculation at best.

So my take on the question, for what it’s worth, is that there’s currently no evidence New Hope is in danger of violating the lobbyist regulations or the tax code restrictions on lobbying by religious organizations. That said, those closer to the ongoing lobbying may know of additional factual information that could change this conclusion.

Kauai County Council to finally consider regulation of lobbyists

1 Reply

Back at the beginning of July, my weekly column at CivilBeat.com was about Kauai County’s failure to regulate lobbyists (“Hawaii Monitor: Kauai’s Free Range Lobbyists“).

It began:

Thirty-five years ago, Hawaii voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution strengthening the regulation of ethics, and requiring state and county ethics codes to meet certain minimum standards, including the registration and regulation of lobbyists.

But Kauai County apparently never got the message. Kauai still has no system for regulating lobbyists, and county officials seem blissfully unaware they have been ignoring a key constitutional provision for decades.

This week, the Kauai County Council will take the first step towards correcting the decades-long oversight. From the council’s agenda for Wednesday, August 28:

Communication (08/20/2013) from Council Chair Furfaro, transmitting for Council consideration, a Bill for an Ordinance to Amend the Kaua’i County Code 1987, as amended, by Adding a New Article to Chapter 4, relating to the Registration and Regulation of Lobbyists. (See Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2497))

You can find the text of the draft measure using the council’s document system.

The bill will hopefully kickstart a discussion of lobbying and how to best regulate the practice. And, yes, it give me a little glow of accomplishment, however modest.

But the bill, if it were to pass in its original form, would represent a missed opportunity.

The bill is largely a rewrite of the state’s lobbyist law (Chapter 97 HRS).

It will require lobbyists to register with the county and to publicly disclose their spending for the purposes of lobbying. All that is good.

But it incorporates all of the ambiguities, loopholes, and limitations that have become so obvious with the state law that have created so much wiggle room in the current statute.

There are several private discussions of problems in the lobbying law currently underway, and it would be wonderful if Kauai were able to draw on some of the lessons to refine their proposal as the bill moves forward.