2006-10-06 Letter to Angel Pilago re Campaign Endorsements and Ads

Home

Informal Adv Opinion 22 Page 1 of 4 INFORMAL ADVISORY OPINION NO. 22 On May 13, 1980, the Commission received a charge against a member of the legislature. The charge was filed pursuant to Rule 5.1 of the Commission Rules and Regulations. Pursuant to HRS §84-31(b), the legislator was afforded an opportunity to present an explanation of the conduct alleged to be in violation of the law. The legislator took advantage of this opportunity and appeared at a Commission hearing. The substance of the charge was that the legislator had violated the State Ethics Code, particularly HRS §84-13, by using his position in an unwarranted manner to influence members of a private organization to support an individual in his attempt to win election to the presidency of the organization. The election was held in May of 1980 at which time the incumbent, the complainant in this case, was re-elected as president. It was agreed that the legislator had written a letter to the supporters of the challenger on state stationery and had identified his position in the legislature. The letter was an endorsement of the challenger's candidacy for the office of president of the organization. The letter was duplicated by the challenger and distributed to an undetermined number of members. As indicated, the result of the election was that the incumbent was re-elected to the post of president over the challenger. The pertinent language in the State Ethics Code was contained in HRS §84-13 and provided as follows: No legislator ... shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment, for himself or others; including but not limited to the following: (3) Using state time, equipment or other facilities for private business purposes. It was the complainant's contention that the use of legislative stationery, bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii, the names of the members of the particular branch, and the legislator's signature and the citation of his particular position in the legislature gave the impression that the state legislature approved of his endorsement. The legislator contended that he had a right to endorse qualified people for election to offices and that the use of the legislative stationery was of no significance. He noted that his identity as a legislator was well-known and could not be disguised by his avoiding the use of the stationery. He commented further that, in his view, the use of the stationery containing the state seal and his signature could not reasonably be expected to influence members of the organization in the way they voted. Certain past opinions of this Commission were relevant to our decision in this case. In Informal Advisory Opinion No. 13, the Commission had found that an employee had violated HRS §84-13 when he asked a secretary to type political solicitation letters and used the state mailing system to forward those letters to persons who, it was hoped, would provide financial support for a particular candidate. While the individual was cited as violating the statute, no sanction was imposed upon the employee other than to require that he reimburse the State for the cost of his activities. In Advisory Opinion No. 350, the Commission advised the chairman of a powerful state board http://www.hawaii.gov/ethics/opinions/IA022.HTM 4/4/2007