Tag Archives: hawaii campaign spending commission

Average Inflation-adjusted cost of winning legislative campaigns has dropped since 1994

6 Replies

Thanks to Senator Les Ihara for pointing out that the Campaign Spending Commission’s Twitter feed includes notices of upcoming fundraisers filed by candidates. It’s a simple way to keep track of these events in the political world.

Recent tweets, for example, have included a January 17 fundraiser for Hawaii Republicans for Life, controversial City Council member Tom Berg’s $50 event on February 23 at the Aloha Tower Marketplace’s Platinum Lounge, and Clayton Hee’s $100 per person fundraiser at Soul de Cuba on January 9.

The commission has also compiled campaign spending data for elections from 1994 through 2010 for the State House and the State Senate.

I’m just starting to take a look at these figures, but one thing jumped out at me. According to these data, the costs of running for elective office and winning have not kept up with inflation. In other words, taking inflation into account, winning candidates spent less in 2010 than in 1994, which is certainly contrary to popular belief.

I averaged the amounts spent by winning candidates in the 1994 and 1996 elections, and did the same with the 2008 and 2010 elections, in order to minimize year-to-year differences caused by a few unusually expensive races or other factors.

Winning House candidates spent an average of $33,976 in the 1994-96 elections. Average spending by winning House candidates rose to $36,443 in 2008-10. But if election costs had kept up with the consumer price index, the cost of winning would have been just over $47,000, some 29% higher.

Senate campaign costs show a similar pattern. Winning Senate candidates spent an average of $84,177 in 1994-96, and that increased to $96,116 during the 2008-2010 elections. But the inflation adjusted amount would have been $116,454, or 21% higher.

So at least for these legislative races, it’s getting relatively less expensive to run a winning campaign.

In any case, the Campaign Spending Commission has provided some fascinating food for thought with its historical data.

Public Funding Pilot Project rules discriminate against young, rural voters/candidates

9 Replies

Two Campaign Spending Commission rules for the Big Island’s pilot project in comprehensive public election financing appear to unfairly discriminate against young voters and those in rural areas.

The pilot project provides for public financing of candidates for Hawaii County Council who qualify by getting $5 contributions from at least 200 registered voters in their district. This is the first election cycle since the pilot project was authorized.

The two problematic commission rules go beyond the requirements of state election law and appear to make it more difficult for certain registered voters to support the candidate of their choice.

The rules caused problems for 26-year old first-time County Council candidate Brittany Smart, who is running for the council seat representing Ka`u, parts of Puna, and South Kona.

Smart pointed to commission rules providing that those $5 qualifying contributions must be made by check or money order, and requiring each person to provide the physical street address of their residence in order for their contribution to be counted.

Smart says a lot of people in her rural district don’t have physical addresses.

“It’s common for people to say, ‘I live next to telephone pole 57 on Kamehameha Avenue,'” or by reference to other landmarks, Smart said.

The requirement goes beyond state election law (Section 11-15 HRS), which simply requires that a resident provide residence “information” in order to register to vote. Rules of the Office of Elections allow a person to provide either a “residence address or a description of the location of the residence….”

But the Campaign Spending Commission’s rule 3-162-1 provides that a description, even one accepted for purposes of voter registration, cannot be used to make a qualifying $5 contribution. If a registered voter can’t or fails to provide a street address, their contribution isn’t counted towards qualifying the candidate for public funding.

Smart said another commission rule which prohibits candidates from accepting the $5 contributions in cash also caused problems for voters in her district.

Many young people do not maintain checking accounts, and Smart said she found voters were reluctant to commit to paying the fee necessary to obtain a $5 money order.

It is generally legal, under state law, for campaigns to accept cash contributions, with the requirement that more than $100 in cash cannot be accepted without a receipt being issued.

There is no indication why stricter standards were applied to candidates trying to qualify for public funding during this pilot project.

Smart said these additional requirements made qualifying for public funding “a long haul.”

“It’s easier for incumbents,” Smart said, “because they already have a list of contributors from previous elections.”

Smart went door-to-door in the district. Her campaign eventually collected the $5 contributions from over 300 people, but the commission only accepted 209, just barely over the threshold of 200.

“But once I qualified, it’s been extremely useful,” Smart said.

It is not clear why the Campaign Spending Commission adopted rules for the pilot project that are stricter than those applying to voter registration or to campaigns generally, or whether the commission realized the discriminatory impact the rules have on certain voters or voters in certain districts.

Monday…Father’s Day report, court takes on campaign contribution issue, newspaper numbers, etc.

1 Reply

[text]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.

Tuesday…Charleyworld joins the Blogosphere, ‘Tiser editorializes again on corporate campaign issue, and some more Kaaawa dogs

1 Reply

Charley Memminger launched his new blog, Charleyworld, yesterday with a plea: “Cut me some slack.”

It’s a good thing, since his lead paragraph mistakenly refers to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as “Harry Reed”.

Okay. Cut me some slack. I’ve never blogged before. At least not in public. But just as everyone eventually gets their 15 minutes of fame, in the digital age, everyone eventually will become a blogger. I expect Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi soon will make blogging mandatory for every citizen of the United States and then institute a Blog Tax. Don’t laugh. It could happen.

But it’s good to have Charley finally joining the Blogosphere anyway. The more the merrier.

I know that I should just sidestep any further comment on the issue of this year’s bills regarding corporate contribution limits, but the Advertiser’s editorial today again feels like a fingernail scratching on a chalkboard.

Given their position, they should just argue directly that corporate contributions should be disallowed. I wouldn’t take any issue with that.

But don’t kid around with the facts and say that the legislature previously adopted a $1,000 limit but “did not set the limit clearly enough for the state Circuit Court”.

In that state court trial on Maui, there was overwhelming evidence that there was no legislative intent to set such a limit. The argument in favor of the existence of a limit, made by the Campaign Spending Commission, was based on, as they say, circumstantial evidence alone. Not a word from any of the relevant committee reports about a bold move to cut out corporate funds.

Then there’s this comment:

Meanwhile, the state Campaign Spending Commission has said the old limit won’t be enforced unless it’s upheld on appeal.

Of course the commission has said that. It’s the law. The court threw out that section of the law, so right now there are no old limits to enforce. The editorial makes it sound like a discretionary action on the part of the commission. I don’t think so.

The editorial then observers: “There’s a lot of political pressure to do nothing.” What they don’t say is that most political pressure is coming from the reformers, who say they would rather see no legislation than any sort of compromise.

At least the Advertiser recognizes the dangers of doing nothing.

The unfortunate thing about the whole episode is that sponsors of the original bill to establish a $25,000 cap on direct corporate contributions were bucking the political tide and, for the first time, trying to openly cap corporate money. Reading the political winds, their proposal didn’t go for a complete ban but, if adopted, would have established both a cap and the principle of limiting corporate spending.

Backers of a ban, though, saw it very differently and branded backers of the $25K limit as tools of the corporations.

I still feel that a legislatively imposed cap, whether at $25,000 or another level, would have been a politically achievable step in the appropriate direction.

I won’t go on. No reason to piss off my friends any more than I already have. My point–It would be best not to seek legitimacy in a mythical past of a $1,000 cap that wasn’t or, at the very minimum, was never intended by the legislature. Argue the issue of the appropriateness of corporate participation in elections directly and bypass all the misunderstandings.

[text]If everything were going to the dogs, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. This is Ms. Emma, one of our newer Kaaawa dogs. Now that the sun is coming up a bit earlier, I’m able to get a few more photos featuring the dogs of our morning walks. Just click on Ms. Emma for a few more.