Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0248.008 2008-2010 Comments for Hawai'i County Council Special Meeting. April 13, 2009, Hilo AGAINST Resolution 98-09 supporting passage of HB 345 re. postponement of a comprehensive public funding program for the County of Hawaii Council elections FOR public funding Please vote down this resolution and support the pilot public funding program. Below are concerns about the program [bold font] and responses [normal font.] Emphasis is added. 1-Costs are too high. Hawai'i County "The program for the County Council will be fully financed by merely the interest gathered on... [the Hawaii public funding] account ...[spendingl proiections are inflated and do not take into account the difficulties of the qualifying process... In Arizona, even after the program had been running for three election cycles, the average number of candidates who qualified per district was 1.17. Even though 24 candidates ran during the last Big Island county election, some of those candidates simply put their name on the sheet without running a serious campaign... for the Fair Elections program to run there must be $3.5 million... in the fund. This will guarantee that the Big Island Fair Elections Act doesn't deplete the fund. There is a capon the Fair Elections program that is set at $300,000. It cannot use any more money than that." (Voter Owned Hawaii e-mail 4-7-09] Connecticut ..Connecticut reports increases from 16 million in fiscal year 2006 to a projected cost of 46 million for fiscal year 2008..." [Reso. 98-091 "2008 was our first cycle for clean elections and was only for legislative seats. There will be a significant increase for 2010 due to statewide offices being included. This includes Gov/LT Gov., treasurer, SOTS, Comptroller and AG. The numbers will be less than 45 million, but we are not sure how much." jTom Swan, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, e-mail 4-11-09] Masssachusetts "...Massachusetts and Kentucky have terminated their full funding program due to costs..." (Reso. 98-091 "The legislative leadership always opposed reform... and used the funding to kill it." (Tom Swan, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, e-mail 4-11-09] "Voters enacted the Massachusetts 'Clean Elections' program through a ballot initiative. The Speaker of the House at that time however, Thomas Finneran, was staunchly opposed to the measure and refused to fund it. The Massachusetts Supreme Court then found the Massachusetts Legislature in violation of their Constitution." [Voter Owned Hawaii e-mail 4-7- 09] "Voters Want Public Funding But Assembly Starves Funding-- In November 1998, Massachusetts overwhelmingly (67%) passed a "clean elections" public financing law that provided the option of full public financing for the campaigns of qualified candidates for statewide offices plus state Senate and House of Representatives. Faced with the unfamiliar threat of having competition as they run for office, the Legislature took measures to gut the law with schemes to divert funding and an inadequate voter check off Some lawmakers claimed that the voters didn't understand what they were voting for via referendum. In 2003, the system was repealed after an advisory initiative in which voters voted nearly 2 to 1 against this use of government funds. After the repeal, a much weaker partial public financing law for six statewide offices was put in place which provides matching funds for contributions of up to $250 for qualified candidates who agree to specific limited expenditures for their campaigns." [Citizens for Election Reform websitd. http://www.cfecus/pageView.asp?PagelD=32] Comm. No. oc g• Ref. To: $ Ref. Date & 1 3 MU w Re. Kentucky--I didn't find any information. 2-Programs elsewhere have been found unconstitutional Only some portions of some programs have been found unconstitutional. For some "comprehensive public funding programs" the "Supreme Court has already turned down an appeal to hear the constitutionality of the matching funds mechanism.... This is a clear sign that they don't believe there is a case." [Voter Owned Hawaii e-mail 4-7-09] For Minnesota, some Hawai'i State legislators claim "Comparable legislation... which would have provided candidates with one-half the amount of independent expenditures made by opposing candidates, was deemed unconstitutional...." ['Delaying the Fair Elections Law is wise" by State Reps. Jerry Chang, Cindy Evans, Robert Herkes. Mark Nakashima and Cliff Tsuji, Hawaii Tribune-Herald, 3-22-09] But the "basic features of Minnesota's campaign finance system have been upheld by the courts... [although] several provisions of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1993 have been struck down..." and "The Minnesota Legislature has responded by amending its new laws to conform to federal court requirements..." [Campaign Finance Law Under Siege in Minnesota, Peter S. Wattson, Senate Counsel, State of Minnesota, September 7, 2004] Resolution 89-09 states "US District Judge Roslyn Silver recently ruled that a key provision of Arizona public campaign-financing system violates constitutional free speech rights" and in Davis v Fed Election Commission 2008 "the United States Supreme Court ...found that provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution concluding that the right to use personal funds to finance a campaign should not produce fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics..." But in both cases one provision was struck down--not the entire system. A Connecticut group feels most of our program can withstand this." ]Tom Swan, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, e- mail 4-99-09] 3-There's no funding for new duties of County and State agencies The County clerk will need to "verify that at least 200 signatures and qualifying contributions were received from registered voters in the district for which each candidate seeks office..." [Reno. 98-09] The Hawaii State Campaign Spending Commission says the law will probably require "tracking and investigating all independent expenditures for every committee and every individual who supports non participating candidates, awarding equalizing funds without sufficient time to verify information... establishing an independent, nonpartisan review committee along with administrative support..." [`Delaying the Fair Elections Law is wise" by State Reps. Jerry Chang, Cindy Evans, Robert Herkes, Mark Nakashime and Cliff Tsuji, Hawai'i Tribune-Herald, 3-22-09] and "hiring of new staff; the development of new manuals, forms, and procedures; modifying the electronic candidate filing system; and potential [sic] educating candidates..." [Reso. 98-09] "We have been expanding County elections staff for several years. We didn't have extra spending dedicated to other initiatives when they checked 16,000 signatures ...[In the unlikely event 24 candidates get 200 signatures] that is only 4,800 signatures. The expenditures will be on a credit/debit card and candidates will be held accountable under theft provisions of state law. [Campaign Spending Commission] should have started developing staff and procedures... when r. the lava was enacted... I contacted them last year about the need to comply with this new jaw." (e- mail from former County Council member Bob Jacobson. 4-11-09J 4-Candidates get money from taxpayers who don't support that candidate. Candidates spend my tax dollars in ways I oppose--after getting elected by big money. S-Fraud and abuse have been reported elsewhere. Compared with hard-to-prove and long-term abuses of public office to favor campaign contributors. abuse of clean elections money seems small-scale and easier to catch. 6-No objective evaluation is planned. There's plenty of evidence of problems with the current big-money system. Studies done elsewhere may assist with evaluation.