Senator Ihara’s floor speech on campaign financing

Senator Ihara yesterday delivered the following speech on the floor in opposition to HB 2003 Relating to Campaign Financing:

Madame President. I rise in opposition to HB 2003, with reservations.

I’d like to first thank the Judiciary Chair for responding positively to concerns that the previous draft did not have transparency requirements for corporate donations to candidates. The reporting requirement now in the bill will give the public access to information on corporate contributions made to candidates.

This information is critical for public understanding on the degree of influence corporations have with successful candidates who make policy-decisions for our state. This is good, but it creates a loophole by avoiding the $1,000 aggregate limit of corporate contributions to its own political action committee. Instead of using the existing corporate PAC reporting requirement, the new reporting requirement is designed to remove the $1,000 corporate aggregate limit and allow them to contribute directly to candidates to the same extent as people like you and me.

This raises the corporate personhood issue, where policy leaders believe corporations should have virtually the same rights as people like you and me. They believe that corporations should have the same right to participate in political campaigns as natural persons. I disagree, because corporations already have too much power in determining public policy. I believe that people, not corporations, should be the primary sponsors of candidates running for public office.

I must oppose this bill because it adds to the bill a significant public policy choice — to allow corporations to have the same campaign contribution limits as people. I strongly disagree with this position. While I appreciate the chair’s efforts to ensure transparency for corporate campaign contributions, it was done in a way that inserts a new policy decision abhorrent to democracy – that of providing for full political participation rights for corporations.

The corporate political rights provision was inserted in an important bill to re-codify the state’s jumbled and cumbersome campaign finance statutes. The corporate rights provision adds deadly poison to this worthy recodification bill, and unfortunately, I must therefore oppose the entire bill. For these reasons, I must state that a public policy decision to give corporations full political participation rights should have been made in a separate bill, rather than piggy-backing on an otherwise good bill. Public officials sometimes wonder why the public is turned off by politics in the legislature. Unfortunately, this bill may be entered as Exhibit #1. Inside a good bill is inserted a policy decision that forever alters the political landscape of Hawaii – in favor or corporations.

Madame President, I have many other concerns about this bill which are the same as those noted in my floor speech on SB2251. They include:
• Section 1’s misrepresentation of the bill as only updating, organizing, and clarifying current campaign financing laws, instead of mentioning significant changes made in the bill;
• Deleting from the purpose statement…the sentence “integrity is essential to promote the public’s confidence in government”;
• Doubling the amount of campaign funds that can be donated to charitable causes, including to public schools and libraries;
• Allowing $500 in anonymous donations made by ten people at a political event; and
• Allowing political party participation by Campaign Spending Commissioners.

I close by noting this bill is better now because of the new transparency provision for corporate campaign contributions. I’m grateful to the Judiciary chair for this. But the bill now also gives full political participation rights to corporations, and it is for this reason I must oppose the bill. It is my hope that the House will consider my objections to the bill and address them in conference committee deliberations. If the House passes the bill in its current form, I will ask the governor to veto it for the reasons I have stated today.

Thank you Madame President.