Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu
Final Reading Written Remarks
House Bill 2003, House Draft 3, Senate Draft 1
Relating to Campaign Financing
58th Day; Tuesday, April 27, 2010
I rise in support.
The campaign finance laws, codified in chapter 11, subpart B of part XII, Hawaii Revised Statutes (campaign finance laws), are unorganized, difficult to read, and inconsistent in some areas, due to the numerous amendments that have been made to these laws over the past thirty-seven years. To address these concerns, the Campaign Spending Commission’s Blue Ribbon Recodification Committee (Committee) reorganized the existing campaign finance provisions in the campaign finance laws, by dividing long sections into shorter sections with clear titles for quick reference and group laws on one subject together, among other things. The product of the Committee’s work was introduced during the 2009 Regular Legislative Session. That measure, House Bill 128, Conference Draft 2 (2009), was passed by the 2009 Legislature, but was subsequently vetoed by the Governor.
The Commission then met with the Governor’s staff to discuss the reasons for the veto. The Commission submitted testimony earlier to your House and Senate Judiciary Committees, stating that two concerns remained unaddressed after these discussions: the number of nominees from which to select commissioners, and the exception of competitively bid contracts from the campaign contribution prohibition.
This measure, and its companion, Senate Bill 2251, were introduced at the Commission’s request during the 2010 Regular Legislative Session. Both of these companion measures addressed the Governor’s concerns, but also made additional changes and amendments, some of which were substantive rather than simply recodifying and reorganizing the existing campaign finance laws. During hearings before the House of Representatives, other changes and amendments were made to House Bill 2003; some of these amendments were also substantive, although favorable for the campaign finance laws.
The Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee amended Senate Bill 2251 by replacing its contents with the contents of House Bill 128, Conference Draft 2 (2009), making changes to address the Governor’s remaining concerns with House Bill 128, Conference Draft 2 (2009), and making technical, nonsubstantive changes. Your House Judiciary Committee did not move Senate Bill 2251, Senate Draft 1 but instead agreed that the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee would move House Bill 2003, House Draft 3.
Accordingly, the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee amended House Bill 2003 by replacing its contents, except as set forth below, with the contents of Senate Bill 2251, S.D. 1. The exceptions are as follows:
(1) Inclusion of a new section to provide for transparency and to indicate that the campaign finance laws should be construed to support transparency;
(2) Amendments to the definitions of “contribution” and “other receipts” to exclude loans, so that reporting of loans to candidate committees will be reported as loans rather than as contributions or receipts, lessening confusion between these categories;
(3) An amendment to the definition of “election period” to clarify the election period for a special election;
(4) Reinsertion of language from existing campaign finance laws regarding the obligation of the Judicial Council to meet and expeditiously select additional persons for the list of nominees whenever the number of the eligible nominees falls below five, as requested by the Chief Justice;
(5) Clarification regarding the authority of the Commission to dismiss persons employed by or contracted with the Commission, to emphasize that such authority is discretionary;
(6) Insertion of a provision from H.B. No. 2003, H.D. 3, regarding ballot issue committees;
Upon receipt of House Bill 2003, House Draft 3, Senate Draft 1 from the Senate, your House Judiciary Committee found technical errors in several sections of the bill that wrongly referenced other sections of the bill. Our House Majority Staff Office attorneys differed with our House judiciary Committee attorneys when they explained that the errors were substantive rather than technical.
Your House Judiciary Committee received a letter from the Campaign Spending Commission asking it to pass House Bill 2003, House Draft 3, Senate Draft 1. We informed the Commission of the errors in the measure. The Commission followed up with a letter stating that they would not enforce the wrong references, thus, current law for those sections would not change and would be enforced as it were prior to these changes. Your House Judiciary Committee replied with a letter accepting the Commission’s offer to not enforce the several wrong references, and in reliance and consideration of that agreement, your House Judiciary Committee agreed to House Bill 2003, House Draft 3, Senate Draft 1.
I want to thank the Campaign Spending Commission, Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, as well as my staff on the House Judiciary Committee for all their hard work. Thank you.
JON RIKI KARAMATSU 