View Point

Friday, August 7, 1998

Lingle was
treated fairly by
spending commission

New rules limiting public campaign
funds shouldn't have surprised
candidates for governor

By Robert Watada

Editor's note: The state Campaign Spending Commission on July 14 denied Republican gubernatorial candidate Linda Lingle's request for matching campaign funds in the same proportion as given to Gov. Ben Caye-tano when he ran for office four years ago. Although the law is unchanged, under a new interpretation her campaign will receive $272,458 in public money, about half the amount she would have been eligible for under the previous reading of the law.

T he Star-Bulletin's July 16 editorial unfairly criticized the Campaign Spending Commission's decision to deny Linda Lingle's attempt to double the amount of public funding that would be available to her campaign for governor.

Had the commission adopted Lingle's interpretation of the rules it could have had a potentially devastating effect on our system of public funding and our ability to regulate campaigns.

Hawaii's partial public funding program is financed by the $2 check-off that taxpayers may dedicate to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund. This fund, which must also be relied upon for campaign spending administration, contains approximately $4.9 million.

Candidates for public office, upon agreeing to limit their spending, may apply for taxpayer matching of small contributions up to a statutory maximum. Under the formula confirmed by the commission, the 125 candidates in 1998 who have agreed to limit their spending are entitled up to a total of about $3 million. This would leave about $2 million for future elections and administration of campaign spending.

Under the formula proposed by Lingle, the potential draw from the fund would be doubled. Candidates would be entitled to more than $6 million from the public fund. This could bankrupt the fund, leave some deserving candidates without their entitled funds, destroy the future of the program, and leave the commission with no ability to carry out its responsibilities.

The Legislature amended the applicable law in 1995 precisely to avoid this outcome. From 1979 until 1995, only candidates for governor and lieutenant governor were entitled to any meaningful public matching funds. In 1995, the Legislature considered proposals to extend the program to other offices. At the direction of the legislative committee chairmen, commission staff ran a number of studies based on proposed changes in the law.

Because of fears about bankrupting the fund, the program was extended to city and county council members, prosecuting attorneys, state legislators, and the Board of Education only after legislators were satisfied that it would be financially responsible to do so.

Ensuring adequate fund balances could be achieved only by reducing the amount potentially available to candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and mayor.

For example, prior to 1995, candidates for nine council races could get a maximum of $100 for the primary and general elections. After the 1995 changes the same candidates were eligible for an average of $18,038 for both elections.

Similarly, a candidate for the state Senate was eligible for a maximum of $100 prior, but in 1998, the average maximum amount available for the same candidate is $9,154. In short, there was a complete change in the scheme of public funding.

Since the passage of these amendments, the program has been administered as directed by the Legislature. In the 1996 election cycle, the now-complained-of formula was applied. No candidate protested, no challenge was brought, and in fact no mention was ever made by any candidate or party of any alternative interpretations. In September 1997, the figures for the 1998 elections were published and made available to candidates -- again no hint of objection.

On Dec. 3, 1997, Lingle signed and filed a statement of intent to seek public funds, which identified and incorporated in her writing the maximum amount available as identified by the commission. No objection was made to the amount or mention made of any conflict with campaign plans or funding expectation.

Despite at least 10 hearings and public meetings on the subject of campaign spending, the 1998 Legislature adjourned without the subject of maximum matching funds having been raised, by any candidate, legislator or party, a single time.

It was not until May 1998 that the issue was raised by Lingle's lawyer before the commission. It was the commission that was thus being asked to "change the rules in the middle of the game." The same rules have been applied to all candidates and campaigns since the 1996 election. Yet a change was being sought four months before the primary election.

Suffice it to say that we believe that we are supported by legislative intent, actual application, public policy and the law.

Finally, any suggestions that the commission's actions or decisions were politically motivated is simply absurd. Our understanding of the law has been applied with absolute consistency since 1995. The amount received by Ben Cayetano in 1994 is not relevant since it is no longer available to him. If he had sought public funds this election, he would have been treated in precisely the same way as Lingle.

I do not mean to suggest in any way that Lingle proceeded in this matter in bad faith. Any candidate presented with the possibility of an additional $250,000 in public funds may have done the same.

But since the Star-Bulletin editorial suggests that the Campaign Spending Commission may have proceeded in error in rejecting her argument, I felt it was necessary to clarify the record in this matter.

---

Robert Watada is the executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission.