Yet Another Challenge to Calvin Say
This one concerns his use of campaign funds for attorney fees, which a constituent alleges is illegal.
A resident of state Rep. Calvin Say’s District 20 filed a complaint this week with the Campaign Spending Commission, alleging that the speaker emeritus聽may have used $60,000 of campaign funds for聽personal use.
“As a voter in District 20, I am outraged that Calvin Say has used tens of thousands of dollars of his campaign funds for personal use by paying his personal attorneys to defend his spurious claim to legal residency,”聽Nancy McGee, a Wilhelmina Rise resident,聽said in a press release Tuesday. “The use of campaign funds for this personal purpose is illegal and against the spirit of our state’s campaign financing system.”
Reached by phone, McGee told Civil Beat that Say “can’t use campaign money for his personal court battles.”
Calvin Say in March 2014.
PF Bentley/Civil Beat
Say, who has served in the Hawaii House of Representatives since 1976, has been challenged several times over complaints that he has not lived in his Palolo Valley home in years and in fact lives in another district. Say has long maintained that he lives in District 20.
Last month, a Circuit Court judge tossed out a legal challenge to Say, arguing that the Hawaii House has authority over member qualifications and not the courts. Last week, Speaker Joe Souki said the House would not take up the issue of Say’s qualifications until the House convenes in session in January.
McGee’s complaint cites 聽that address the聽use of campaign funds. Those聽laws say that the money can not be used for “personal expenses.”
But the laws also聽state that a candidate may use funds “for any purpose directly related …聽to the candidate’s own campaign.” And, the money聽may be used “to pay for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with聽the candidate’s duties as a holder of an office.”
McGee also cites Hawaii Administrative Rules 3-160-42, which spells out聽. The definitions聽include:
(10) Legal expenses not related to the nomination or election of a candidate; provided that personal expenses do not include legal expenses specifically related to the nomination or election of a candidate in:
(A) Proceedings before the commission; or
(B) Proceedings before an administrative agency or a court of law;
Say, perhaps, could make the argument that his legal fees are directly聽relate to his campaign to stay in office. Indeed, with the Campaign Spending Commission lists $23,354 paid to law firm for聽legal fees; the filing says the expenses聽were “Directly Related to Candidate’s Campaign.”
An attorney for the聽Campaign Spending Commission said the agency聽has not acted on the most recent聽complaint and could not comment on its allegations. The commission聽normally gives subjects of complaints two weeks to respond.
Say did not respond to Civil Beat’s media inquiries.
