Meda and I met my mother and sister for a Father’s Day visit with my father, now more than half-way to his 96th birthday. We took along a tray of fruit–strawberries, cantaloupe, watermelon, lychee–and some fresh homemade shortbread that Bonnie made from a recipe of our grandmother’s.

Unfortunately, we got a call about noon saying that he had a dizzy spell and had gone back to bed, so we didn’t know what to expect for our mid-afternoon gathering.

But he was feeling quite a bit better by the time we arrived. He didn’t recall the dizziness, thought he had been asleep since last night, and recognized all of us and was able to both enjoy the fruit and cookies, and sort of understand the Father’s Day thing. We’ve learned to take what we can get from these interactions.

Last Wednesday’s oral arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals in the case of the Charmaine Tavares Campaign v. Barbara Wong in her capacity as executive director of the Campaign Spending Commission didn’t give much comfort to those hoping the court might uphold the commission’s interpretation that there is a $1,000 cap on campaign contributions by corporations in any election period.

Deputy Attorney General Russell Suzuki gamely tried to argue the commission’s convoluted case, relying on a mix of legislative history and creative explanation of what happens when a corporation makes a contribution to a candidate.

To make their the commission’s theory work, Suzuki argued that before a corporation can make a campaign contribution, it must first organize as a noncandidate committee “and administratively remove the funds from the corporation to this committee before they can be transferred or contributed to the candidate’s committee.”

And, Suzuki argued, it was that presumed administrative transfer that ran directly into the $1,000 limit on contributions to noncandidate committees.

But attorney William Crockett saw the case as very simple, and by their questions the judges seemed inclined to agree.

He pointed to Section 11-204(a), which provides that “no person or any other entity shall make contributions” to a candidate or a candidate’s committee in excess of statutory limits, which range from $2,000 per election period in the case of local races to $6,000 for statewide races.

The contributions involved in this case were all made to a candidate’s committee. All were within those limits. Case closed, Crockett said.

One of the judges asked Suzuki the key question. “Under your interpretation, would any ‘person’ other than an individual be able to make a contribution under 11-204(a)?”

Suzuki: “No.”

So that even though the statute clearly allows “any entity” to give candidates up to $6,000, in some cases, or up to $4,000 in a mayor’s race, the commission gets tangled up in logic and would have to say that such contributions wouldn’t really be legal.

Crocket then made the obvious point. The $1,000 contribution limit was to regulate contributions to PACs, political action committees and ballot issue committees. Higher contribution limits were set for candidates and their committees.

When interpreted that way, Crocket argued, “the statute hangs together and does make sense.” That’s not the case with the commission’s proposed interpretation.

You can listen to the recording of last week’s hearing and decide for yourself, but I would expect a ruling from the Intermediate Court generally agreeing that the commission’s attempt to create and impose a $1,000 limit on corporate contributions contradicts the clear language of the statute.

Just a few weekend stories to comment on. Erika Engle presents Oahu newspaper “readership” stats (as opposed to sales numbers) showing the Star-Bulletin posting solid readership gains. But the numbers also make clear that the S-B’s overall impact falls far below the Advertiser’s. The Sunday Advertiser reaches nearly 60% of Oahu’s population, according to these numbers, with 50% reached on weekdays, while the S-B hits around 20% all week.

Let’s see. Still on the newspaper front, both Honolulu dailies editorialized on the issue of furloughs. The S-B editorial was simply a recitation of the situation with no value added. The Advertiser, on the other hand, called on the parties to give up the “posturing” and get to an agreement. I would give the ‘Tiser’s version of the editorial at least a high “B” grade. I would have had trouble giving the S-B a passing grade. Just too little thought went into its editorial.

And I have to give Advertiser business writer Sean Hao a mention for his excellent story on the state’s solar power contracts. Excellent analysis of an overlooked set of contracts, locked in at the worst time with no protections against falling energy prices.

And from the Seattle Times, a look at what that city is doing to confront the issue of youth violence. Compare that to the inaction we’ve seen from our state and city. Again, Hawaii lags far behind in social policy.