Dems see criminal offense
in Lingle overspending

By Mike Yuen
Star-Bulletin

The state Democratic Party is demanding criminal prosecution of Republican gubernatorial nominee Linda Lingle for "recklessly" breaking her promise to abide by voluntary campaign spending limits.

Lingle's inability to keep her vow casts doubt on her character and her fitness to be governor, said Democratic Party Chairman Walter Heen, a retired state appellate judge.

If there were to be a successful criminal prosecution of Lingle, it would mean she would not be able to hold office even if she were to defeat Gov. Ben Cayetano, a Democrat.

Yesterday, Heen filed a complaint against Lingle for failing to abide by her promise to limit her campaign spending to $1.36 million in the primary, which allowed her to receive $136,229 in public funds.

Lingle spokesman Randy Roth, a University of Hawaii professor, was astounded that Heen saw a criminal offense in what Roth termed "a simple mistake made by a volunteer treasurer."

"Judge Heen is a good friend of mine," said Roth, who with Heen and three others co-authored the critique of the Bishop Estate, which led to a state investigation into the charitable trust. "But if you take politics out of this (campaign spending complaint), any first-year law student can tell you that this claim is without merit."

For Heen, the key evidence that Lingle knowingly exceeded the voluntary spending limit for the GOP gubernatorial primary is a quote in a published report Saturday: "We spent what we needed to win the election in the primary."

Roth said it was Thursday night -- 19 days after the primary -- when the Lingle campaign discovered that she had exceeded the voluntary spending limit by more than $150,000. The next day, Lingle told reporters she was returning $136,229 to the Campaign Spending Commission.

Roth added that Lingle acted differently from Cayetano, who was in a similar situation four years ago. Lingle did not try to find a loophole, as Cayetano did, to get out the jam, Roth said. Lingle decided to abide by the spirit of the law and cut a check, Roth said.

Heen said the Republican complaint that Cayetano's 1994 gubernatorial campaign had exceeded the spending limit by $300,000 was dismissed. "It was legal at the time, and then they closed it up," Heen said. "That's what the law is all about -- technicalities. If the technicality is there, you have a right to rely on it."

Heen likened what Cayetano did to what taxpayers do when they use provisions in the federal tax code to ease their tax burdens.

Robert Watada, executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission, said Lingle's overspending means she won't be eligible for public funds for the general election.

Lingle could also face stiff fines, Watada added. If the commission concludes that Lingle and her campaign deliberately tried to conceal campaign overspending, the panel could turn the case over to the city prosecutor for a criminal investigation, Watada said.

In addition to returning public funds, the Lingle campaign must now formally notify everyone who has contributed to her campaign that their donations are no longer tax-deductible.