Ouch. I just got around to actually reading what blogger Andy Parx had to say recently about me and my views of the campaign finance issues. Whew. I’ve got pretty thick skin, but that was pretty harsh.

To be honest, I don’t think I qualify as a reactionary corporate stooge for trying to deal with some of the complexities of the campaign law and for pointing out where the public debate has gone off track. Nor do I apologize for taking the position that an assessment of risks and rewards should be a natural part of political strategizing.

What is clear is that how people view the proposed “limits” on corporate campaign contributions that were part of HB 539 depends a great deal on how you understand the status quo.

Opponents of HB 539 believe current state law limits any corporation to a total of $1,000 in campaign contributions during an election cycle. That’s $1,000 total to all recipients combined. So that any limit greater than $1,000 means an unwanted and unwarranted increase in corporate influence.

My point is simply this: What if that’s not what the law actually says?

Try to forget for the time being whether you think corporate money should be banned and look at the separate issue of whether it has actually already been capped at just $1,000.

The $1,000 corporate limit doesn’t actually appear directly in the statute, which allows persons “or any other entity” to contribute directly to candidates. The $1,000 limit was made up by the Campaign Spending Commission as it interpreted two ambiguous sections of the law.

And a Maui judge in 2007agreed with the Attorney General and the campaign of Maui Mayor Charmaine Tavares that the commission’s reading of the law was wrong.

The notion that the legislature was going to make most corporate contributions illegal was never raised during any of the legislative discussions or committee reports when the law was amended in 2005. Proponents of a ban on corporate money in politics didn’t see it that way at the time, and neither did members of the legislature.

And the Maui court agreed that it had not been the legislature’s intent at the time.

The Maui decision is now on appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

In it’s appeal, the Campaign Spending Commission acknowledges that to enforce the $1,000 limit, it had to say that a corporation’s direct contribution to a candidate actually involved a fictional transfer to a noncandidate committee.

“However, in keeping with the registration and reporting objectives of the campaign spending law, the phrase “to a noncandidate committee” may also be interprested (as it has been by the CSC) as meaning or, referring to, a noncandidate committee as an accounting mechanism or artifice to account for, or track, the disbursement of corporate funds to a candiate or candidate committee on a corporate financial ledger. Interpreted in this way, 11-204(b) restricts business entities to making contributions “to” a noncandidate committee on its financial ledger in an aggregate not greater than $1,0000 and requires disclosure of the contribution in a noncandidate committee report filed with the CSC.” [Emphasis added]

That tricky assumption that “an accounting mechanism” or bookkeeping artifice is essentially equivalent to setting up a political action committee was not persuasive in the Maui case.

It still hasn’t persuaded the Attorney General, which filed a brief in the appeal opposing the Campaign Spending Commission’s view.

“Nothing in the legislative history contradicts the Circuit Court’s findings or conclusions, or comes even close to suggesting a basis for the Commisson’s construction…”, the AG argued.

Let me say one more time. We’re not talking about what we would like the law to say, or what state policy should be towards corporate contributions. We’re talking about what the law actually is. Two different things.

In my view, opponents of HB 539 need to stop claiming that the bill would increase limits on corporate contributions. That’s simply not true, because right now there are no limits as a result of the Maui court decision.

Am I being reactionary for trying to keeping the debate somewhat in line with the facts? I don’t think so. But again, you may disagree.