Supreme Court Rightly Rejects Hawaii Campaign Law Challenge
The justices refuse to hear a Hawaii appeal that had the potential to do on a local level what Citizens United has done to federal elections.
In an era when the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 controversial Citizens United v. FEC decision has given big businesses carte blanche to throw endless sums of money at U.S. elections, Monday鈥檚 SCOTUS聽 was welcome news.
The case involved A-1 A-Lectrician, a Honolulu company that sought to help defeat state Rep. Blake Oshiro in his 2010 bid for re-election. Oshiro wasn鈥檛 just any legislator, he was House majority leader, and in that role had played a key part in passage of Hawaii鈥檚 civil unions bill that afforded relationship recognition and protection for gay and lesbian couples.
This was three years before Hawaii鈥檚 passage of a marriage equality bill, of course, and the politics around recognition of same-sex couples were incendiary. Openly gay himself, Oshiro navigated the legislative process to move the bill toward final passage, winning kudos from LGBT voters and progressives, but angry condemnation from religious conservatives.
Coming from that latter camp, A-1 A-Lectrician CEO Jimmy Yamada and Russell Stewart sauntered into Oshiro鈥檚 re-election race with a wad of cash and chips on their shoulders. A-1 A-Lectrician spent $9,000 on print ads warning of 鈥淔reedom Under Siege鈥 that proclaimed Oshiro 鈥渋ntent on the destruction of the family.
鈥淲e have representatives who do not understand the importance of the values that made our nation great,鈥 . “The first and most important of those is the family. Representatives such as Blake Oshiro and other representatives are intent on the destruction of the family.”
Problem was, A-1 A-Lectrician didn鈥檛 want to comply with Hawaii鈥檚 campaign finance laws, which include 鈥渆xtensive reporting鈥 and record keeping among a 鈥減anoply of political committee burdens,鈥 filed by the company and a group of attorneys known for legal challenges to pro-gay policies and laws.
Any entity that spends $1,000 or more in a Hawaii race must register as a political action committee, or face sanctions from the state Campaign Spending Commission and possibly criminal charges.
A-1 A-Lectrician didn鈥檛 want to comply with Hawaii鈥檚 campaign finance laws, which include 鈥渆xtensive reporting鈥 and record keeping among a 鈥減anoply of political committee burdens,鈥 according to its lawsuit.
The electrician firm challenged those requirements in 2010 and lost, and then lost on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 鈥 a case that also affirmed Hawaii鈥檚 ban on government contractors, of which A-1 A-Lectrician is one 鈥 giving political donations to state and county candidates.
The Supreme Court鈥檚 refusal Monday to hear the final appeal closes the door on the firm鈥檚 case for good.
In addition to striking a blow in favor of transparency and accountability in Hawaii elections, these decisions carry a measure of poetic justice: A-1 was represented in part by , the ultra-conservative Indiana attorney who brought the case in the Citizens United decision, and , former head of Hawaii Family Advocates and a longtime opponent of civil union and marriage equality laws.
Lost to some in all this history is the fact that Oshiro handily won re-election in 2010 despite the intervention of A-1 A-Lectrician. He left the Legislature the next year to work for Gov. Neil Abercrombie as deputy chief of staff, and when Abercrombie lost his re-election bid last fall, , one of the state鈥檚 leading law firms.
The best revenge, as they say, is living well.
Had A-1 A-Lectrician, Bopp and Hochberg won this case, Hawaii state and local elections might have begun to look a lot like the federal races 鈥 spend-a-thons dominated by shadowy organizations and the deep-pocket donors who hide anonymously behind them.
Civil Beat often rails against threats to transparency, openness and accountability around Hawaii elections, public records and public meetings. The recordkeeping, reporting and general accountability required by state campaign finance laws are one area, though, where Hawaii mostly gets it right.
Given its recent track record, SCOTUS might have been expected to rule differently. The court’s prudent rejection of a case with the potential to significantly change our politics for the worse will benefit Hawaii for years to come.
