The Campaign Spending Commission provided the following from their latest newsletter on 2010 legislation, now law, related to the elections process and campaign financing:
HB 2003/Act 211 - recodifies the campaign finance laws and is effective upon approval.
The recodification was the Commission’s top priority because the laws were first enacted in 1973 and “numerous amendments (were) made to the campaign finance laws in a piecemeal fashion and, apparently, with little regard to the laws as a whole. The resulting laws are unorganized, difficult to read, and inconsistent in some areas.”
Act 211 organizes the laws into a new part of chapter 11, with ten subparts. Long and involved sections are divided into shorter sections with clear titles for quick reference. All the laws on one subject are grouped together, in contrast to the prior statutes that required a reader to search through the entire subpart for laws that may apply to that one subject.
Act 211 has other provisions including the following that: clarify the treatment of ballot issue committees by adding a new definition and amending an existing statute relating to enforcement; clarify several statutes by removing references to “penalties” and replacing them with the term “fines” and clarify that the Commission has discretion regarding fines; changes the limit for nonresident contributions from 20 percent per reporting period to 30 percent in the election period; permit a candidate to donate to a public school or public library up to twice the candidate’s contribution limit; and provide transparency for corporate contributions by requiring that reports be filed starting with the reporting period beginning on January 1, 2011.
HB2397/Act 126 moves the primary election date to the second Saturday in August from the second Saturday in September and the filing deadline at the Elections Office to the first Tuesday in June. This act is effective on January 1, 2011.
HB1985/Act 59 removes the state income tax deduction for certain campaign contributions, effective January 1, 2011.
Showing posts with label Campaign Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign Spending. Show all posts
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Ruling on Campaign Spending
Today, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in favor of plaintiff-appellee Charmaine Tavares Campaign, clarifying the campaign spending law relating to corporate contributions.
A copy of the ruling is here.
In summary, the ICA agreed with the Circuit Court's August 10, 2007 judgment that corporations may donate to candidates directly under the limits of $2,000, $4,000 or $6,000 according to the office for which the candidate is running. While the $1,000 limit for Political Action Committees is still in place, corporations do not need to contribute to a candidate via the PAC.
This past session, various "compromise" proposals were introduced, such as implementing an aggregate cap on corporate contributions of either $25,000 or $50,000. The advantage to the aggregate cap is that they would have included a disclosure mechanism with the abilityto more easily track corporate contributions. The compromise was opposed by advocates who wanted to see the cap remain at $1,000 or to eliminate corporate contributions altogether.
Majority Leader Blake Oshiro said that advocates who fought the compromise caps "rolled the dice and lost." He indicated that while he is personally okay with establishing an aggregate cap, he feels that it is "highly unlikely that a bill to do so would pass at this point."
A copy of the ruling is here.
In summary, the ICA agreed with the Circuit Court's August 10, 2007 judgment that corporations may donate to candidates directly under the limits of $2,000, $4,000 or $6,000 according to the office for which the candidate is running. While the $1,000 limit for Political Action Committees is still in place, corporations do not need to contribute to a candidate via the PAC.
This past session, various "compromise" proposals were introduced, such as implementing an aggregate cap on corporate contributions of either $25,000 or $50,000. The advantage to the aggregate cap is that they would have included a disclosure mechanism with the abilityto more easily track corporate contributions. The compromise was opposed by advocates who wanted to see the cap remain at $1,000 or to eliminate corporate contributions altogether.
Majority Leader Blake Oshiro said that advocates who fought the compromise caps "rolled the dice and lost." He indicated that while he is personally okay with establishing an aggregate cap, he feels that it is "highly unlikely that a bill to do so would pass at this point."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
House Recommits HB539 on campaign spending
On the House floor today, after hearing concerns on the measure from certain members, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, chair of Judiciary moved to recommit HB539, RELATING TO CAMPAIGN SPENDING back to the Judiciary committee. The motion passed, and the bill's future is uncertain.
The bill allows a "company" (defined as corporation, partnership, LLC, LLP, financial institution, or any other entity engaged in businss) to make an unlimited contribution into a noncandidate committee that is established by the company.
That noncandidate committee would have been able to make a contribution to a political party under the same restrictions and conditions as an individual person.
The bill allows a "company" (defined as corporation, partnership, LLC, LLP, financial institution, or any other entity engaged in businss) to make an unlimited contribution into a noncandidate committee that is established by the company.
That noncandidate committee would have been able to make a contribution to a political party under the same restrictions and conditions as an individual person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)