������Ƶ

This past year, two individuals gave boxes of chocolate to each legislator. This gift is likely what many would consider a “gift of aloha.”

The cost of each box of chocolates was probably low (say around $10), although the cumulative cost may have been high (76 legislators x $10 = $760). I am confident that no legislator changed his or her mind on a legislative issue based on receiving this single gift. 

So why should the public care about such gifts? Compounded by the routine giving of dozens of similar gifts, a public perception forms that other state agencies, nonprofits, and businesses must also give something in order to meet with legislators, have their bills heard, or establish a relationship with a legislator.

Rumors run rampant at the Capitol. It wasn’t long ago that I was told the only way to influence an incoming governor was to contribute to his inauguration event. Incoming lobbyists are frequently told they “must” drop off food at a legislator’s office in order to get a meeting with that legislator. Even if not accurate, such rumors reflect a public opinion that policymaking is dependent on gifts and contributing to the right person.

I sincerely doubt that many candidates run for office with the intent of personally benefiting from graft. Instead, newly elected public officials enter a system based on reciprocity, that is, scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

For example, a lobbyist buys a legislator coffee while meeting to discuss a bill. That lobbyist comes across as a “nice guy.” Later, when the lobbyist asks for a meeting with a client, the legislator says, “sure, you’re a nice guy, of course I’ll meet with your client.”

Similarly, there is a perception that a junior legislator must support a committee chair’s recommendations, otherwise none of their bills will be considered.

Nothing corrupt with these examples, but a pattern has developed: I help you, you help me. Instead of reviewing bills purely on merit, legislators start to consider who introduced it, who’s advocating for it, and what’s the possible penalty/reward if I vote for it? This reciprocity culture tarnishes the image of our government, erodes public trust, and compromises the integrity of our decision-making process. It also establishes a culture that can lead to more blatant and illegal examples of public corruption.

Looking at the criminal cases against former Rep. Ty Cullen and former Sen. Kalani English, there does not appear to be an express quid pro quo, that is, a “vote this way and I’ll pay you money.” Instead, there was only a continuation of the culture of giving and expecting favors. In this case, gifts of free lodging, free entertainment, and free food – or even direct payments of money – were reciprocated by the willingness to use legislative heft to back policies favorable to the giver.

While such blatantly corrupt acts are plainly illegal and unethical, one can logically see how the existing legislative gifting culture might lead some individuals down this path. To be clear, I’m not excusing the criminal behavior of Cullen and English, but rather noting that the culture at the Capitol may create a slippery slope towards corruption.

Culture makes a difference. Expectations arise and norms are established. I used to do a lot of paid advocacy work at the Public Utilities Commission. It got to the point where I was reasonably friendly with many of the commissioners. When we’d meet for coffee, I’d offer to pay. I was met with a firm “no, sorry, I can’t accept that.” This established a tone. Those leaders were happy to meet and discuss ideas, but they drew a firm line in the sand against accepting gifts – even small ones – from advocates practicing before them.

Hawaii has a standing law that prohibits gifts to state employees or legislators that can “reasonably be inferred” to influence or reward a legislator. Over the years, the Hawaii State Ethics Commission has drawn a stricter interpretation of what “reasonably infer” means. This is a healthy progression, intended to shift the culture at the Capitol, as well as remove the appearance of impropriety associated with frequent gift-giving.

In this context of attempting to change our legislative culture, it’s important to note the significant steps taken by the Legislature this past session to combat the perception of a system operating on gift-giving. The Legislature introduced and passed bills requiring lobbyists to be more transparent and ethically astute. Consider:

• extends the same gift-giving restrictions on lobbyists that are in place for legislators. This ensures that lobbyists – who are understandably looking for every tool in their toolbox to help get a bill passed or killed – will know they cannot furnish unpermitted gifts to the Legislature or they’ll risk personal liability.
• prohibits lobbyists from giving or promising to give a campaign contribution during the legislative session. This reduces the relatively direct connection between taking a legislative action and receiving a campaign contribution.  
• requires lobbyists to name the bills or matters they’re lobbying on with specificity, thus greatly increasing sunshine and transparency in lobbying.
• mandates lobbyists to take a mandatory lobbying ethics training course, giving the Ethics Commission an opportunity to train lobbyists on new lobbying regulations and best practices.

These new laws regulating lobbying are meaningful steps toward changing the culture at the Capitol. While plainly more needs to be done, Hawaii is undergoing the process of establishing new norms and expectations around lobbying and gifts.

This helps ensure the voices of ordinary citizens are not drowned out by the powerful and favored few, and moves us toward a political process conducted with honesty, accountability, and a commitment to the public good.