Minutes for August 30, 2007

Campaign Spending Commission Meeting
Leiopapa A Kamehameha Building, Room 204
August 30, 2007
9:30 a.m.

Members Present:
Paul Kuramoto, Steven Olbrich, Gino Gabrio, Dean Robb, Michael Weaver

Staff Present:
Barbara Wong, Tony Baldomero, Grant Tanimoto, Ellen Kojima

Call to Order:
Meeting convened at 9:30 a.m. with Chairperson Kuramoto presiding.

Old Business:
Charmaine Tavares Campaign v. Barbara U. Wong in her capacity as Executive Director of the State of Hawaii Campaign Commission Litigation
Mr. Kuramoto presented his views on why the Commission should appeal the court decision. The decision was based only on section 11-204(a), but when you read the law and rules as a whole only a noncandidate committee and an individual may contribute to a candidate committee.

Mr. Gabrio stated that the Commission is charged with enforcing the laws that have been promulgated by the legislature, but we’re in a situation where it is unclear what the legislature intended.  The Commission has been consistently interpreting the law one way and the Attorney General’s office, who also represents us, shares our views, but Tavares, one court in Maui and Attorney General Mark Bennett have another interpretation.  The question is, what’s the responsibility of the Commission?  Is it to agree with the Maui lower court or let the Supreme Court decide?  He’s in favor of appealing the decision to resolve the interpretation of the law.

Mr. Olbrich said the law is vague and unclear as to what the legislature intended.  It’s a legislative problem and should be corrected by that body and he is not in favor of appealing the decision.

Staff recommends that the court decision be appealed because the Commission has been consistently interpreting the law one way for ten years, and corporations and companies have been registering and filing reports.  The staff will also go to the legislature and propose legislation to make the law clearer.

Mr. Weaver stated that there’s been a consistent pattern regarding the Commission’s interpretation of the law and that the ruling flies in the face of consistency.

Mr. Robb stated that the decision to appeal should be based on transparency and not on whether corporate contributions should be limited.  The purpose of the appeal would be to encourage transparency and enforcement of the law.  He favors appealing, but does not want the brief to take a policy point of view, regarding contribution limits for corporations.

Discussion on how staff will handle enforcement during the appeal process or if the Commission decides not to appeal.  Staff to post a notice on the website saying that because of the court ruling the Commission will not enforce registration, reporting and contribution limits under section 11-204(b) for corporations and companies that make contributions directly from their treasury to candidates until the appeal is decided or the legislature changes the law.

Mr. Gabrio said that the legislature, rather then the Commission should establish policy and the law.  The Supreme Court should decide the issue, rather then one judge because the law is not clear.

Mr. Robb moved that the matter be appealed.  Motion seconded by Mr. Weaver.  Motion carried. (Ayes-4 / no-Olbrich)

Next Meeting:
Scheduled for Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. Olbrich moved to adjourn meeting.  Motion seconded by Mr. Robb.  Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.