������Ƶ

Editor’s note: For Hawaii’s Aug. 10 Primary Election, Civil Beat asked candidates to answer some questions about where they stand on various issues and what their priorities will be if elected.

The following came from Natalia Hussey-Burdick, Democratic candidate for state House District 50, which includes Kailua and a portion of Kaneohe Bay. Her primary opponent is Mike Lee.

Go to Civil Beat’s Election Guide for general information, and check out other candidates on the Primary Election Ballot.

1. What is the biggest issue facing your district, and what would you do about it?

With almost every issue area in crisis, I struggle to choose only one “biggest issue.” Everything needs urgent work — education, affordable housing, health care, insurance costs, environmental protections, tourism — everything.

With that said, the last time I filled out Civil Beat’s Candidate Q&A, I reported homelessness as a major issue affecting my community, and that remains true today. After I took office, I joined the Majority Policy Committee to help set policy priorities for the House Majority Caucus. I made sure homelessness and adjacent issues like affordable housing and mental health services were our top three priorities.

I’m pleased to report that those are some of the areas where we were able to make the most progress this year. Some of the most impactful bills we passed include: Senate Bill 3139 (health crisis diversion program), SB 3279 (statewide mental health support services) and House Bill 2042 (investing in youth mental health to reduce the future generation of homelessness).

Additionally, we more than doubled our base budget funding for rental assistance services from $1.06 million to $2.56 million.

There is still much we need to accomplish, from transitional housing to substance abuse treatment. I look forward to building on these achievements next year.

2. How do you feel about the massive income tax cut just approved by the Legislature and the governor? Do you have any concerns that it will force reductions in state services in the years to come?

The historic income tax cut was one of the most difficult votes I made this past session. I would have preferred a drastically different tax structure. I’ve been advocating for the desperately needed tax relief for our working-class families contained in this bill for years. However, this bill also gives a needlessly large tax break to some of the wealthiest people in Hawaii.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that around 42% of the benefit from this bill will go to the top 20% of earners who, on average, make $304,000 a year. Over the next five years, this bill will cost the state an estimated $5 billion in lost revenue. I worry that future legislatures may end up having to cut programs to cover the difference. I am committed to passing creative revenue generators next year (like a steep vacant homes tax, for example) to make up the difference without cutting services.

3. Hawaii continues to struggle with pay-to-play politics and corruption in government. What meaningful reforms do you think would change state government for the better?

One of the main reasons I ran for office in the first place was to shake up the “good ol’ boy” network and improve the system so that future generations won’t be plagued with this mismanagement. The Legislature is struggling with an ongoing federal bribery investigation, and a pay-to-play campaign donation culture that isn’t technically illegal but is certainly unethical, unjust and deeply problematic.

During my time in office I’ve introduced and supported dozens of bills to make the Legislature accountable to the people again, such as HB 2021 removing the Legislature’s exemption from the Sunshine Law.

My favorite bill to come out of the Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct was HB 725 because, if passed, it would have enacted many meaningful reforms like the right to testify on a bill, the expectation that bills shouldn’t have deliberate defects or blank dollar amounts, that nonfiscal bills should not be referred to the finance committees, and the right to know which lobbyist or interest group suggested a bill idea. 

It’s quite clear to me that we cannot make progress on critical issues like affordable housing, childcare or traffic safety until we address corruption and conflicts of interest first.

4. Candidates often say they will support reform proposals in the Legislature. And yet major reform proposals don’t pass. Will you back good- government proposals even if it means going against leadership? If you are an incumbent, can you point to an example of a reform that you supported?

What sets me apart from most legislators is that I got my start as a community advocate and organizer. I know what it’s like to testify, urging legislators to support meaningful reforms, only to watch those bills die year after year with little to no explanation.

No amount of political pressure or campaign contributions could change my position on these fundamental bills — and my position is the same in public as it is in caucus and backroom conversations.

I’ve long been, and remain, a champion of reforms to curb this go-along-to-get-along, backroom deal-making culture at the Legislature. It’s long past time to end the Legislature’s exemption from the Sunshine Law, provide adequate public funding for elections, and set term limits for the Legislature.

5. Do you support comprehensive public financing of elections for candidates who choose to participate? Why or why not?

Absolutely. This is the “reform that makes all other reforms possible” because it opens the door to allow more diverse, underrepresented candidates to run credible campaigns for public office. A successful state House campaign often costs $50,000-$70,000 or more. That kind of money is simply not attainable by most working class people who aren’t independently wealthy and don’t have a network of rich acquaintances or special interest contacts to raise funds from.

Our current public funding system is broken. The expenditure limits are too low, the benefit portion is too small, and it’s all reimbursement-based so you still have to be wealthy enough to spend a lot of money up-front. For my district, had I chosen the public funding option, the maximum public funds I could gain would be only an additional $4,666, but I would be limited to spending only $31,109 — not nearly enough to run a competitive campaign in District 50.

I’d prefer stricter limits on money in politics, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision severely restricts what we can do as state legislators. I continue to urge our congressional delegation to enact campaign finance reform on the federal level.

6. Hawaii is the only Western state without a statewide citizens initiative process. Do you support such a process? Why or why not?

I support a statewide initiative process with appropriate safeguards in place to protect our people and our environment. Citizen-driven ballot initiatives have the potential to be a powerful tool for our residents, but it comes at the risk of the process being overrun by corporate special interest spending (another good reason for Congress to take action on the Citizens United decision).

Hawaii already allows for limited county-level initiative and referendum, but we’ve seen that sometimes successful county initiatives have been overturned by the courts when it was determined that the counties didn’t have proper authority to regulate the issue in question.

Given the risks, I initially opposed statewide ballot initiatives out of fear of runaway corporate interference in our elections. Ultimately, after thoughtful consideration, I concluded that the citizens initiative process has more potential for good than evil, especially when the Legislature repeatedly fails to protect the public interest. I have faith in the people of Hawaii to decide what’s best for them.

7. Thanks to their campaign war chests and name familiarity, incumbents are almost always reelected in Hawaii legislative races. Should there be term limits for state legislators, as there are for the governor’s office and county councils? Why or why not?

I strongly support term limits for all elected offices. We have them for good reason at almost every other level of government: president, governor, lieutenant governor, mayor and council members. The only elected offices who don’t have to adhere to term limits are members of Congress and our state Legislature.

We don’t need lifetime office-holders. We need passionate advocates for their communities who will work hard, accomplish their goals within the limited time they have, and then pass the torch to the next generation. Our current lack of term limits fosters a general attitude of “we can always try again next year.” We don’t have the luxury of time on critical issues like climate change or our high cost of living. Every year we fail to act, our problems grow worse and more local people move away.

8. What will you do to ensure accountability at the Legislature? Do you support ideas such as requiring the Sunshine Law to apply to the Legislature or banning campaign contributions during session?

I proudly introduced one of the first bills in years to require the Legislature to abide by the Sunshine Law, HB 2021, and I have bipartisan support from my community on this. I conducted a survey of voters in my district and discovered an overwhelming 87.5% supported requiring the Legislature to abide by the Sunshine Law, with only 0.9% opposed.

We’ve passed legislation to eliminate fundraising events during session, but if we truly want to eliminate the pay-to-play culture of the Legislature we need to go a step further and place a ban on accepting any campaign contribution during session. The quid pro quo back-scratching is alive and well, only now it’s happening on a one-on-one basis without even the benefit of a fundraiser event disclosure to let the public know when it’s happening.

In the meantime, I’ve taken personal responsibility by being one of only a handful of incumbents to have taken the Our Hawaii Pledge to run a clean campaign not funded by corporate PACs and lobbyists, executives of luxury developers, major landowners, hotel conglomerates, energy monopolies, military contractors, etc. This ethical stance ensures that I’m accountable only to my constituents, not those special interests.

9. How would you make the Legislature more transparent and accessible to the public? Opening conference committees to the public? Stricter disclosure requirements on lobbying and lobbyists? How could the Legislature change its own internal rules to be more open?

Shortly after I took office, I did an interview with Civil Beat highlighting how the Legislature could increase transparency and accessibility without passing any new bills (“Rep. Natalia Hussey-Burdick: How To Reform Government Without Even Passing New Laws”).

Some new ideas I’d like to add:

All bills that die in committee should have a publicly stated reason why.

Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds should be allocated evenly by district. In other states, all elected officials are given the same amount and they choose which projects to fund in their districts (school improvements, parks, etc.) In Hawaii, legislators give their top three requests to the House and Senate CIP chairs, who decide which projects, if any, they think are worthy.

More legislative webpages should be hyperlinked together. For example, committee acronyms on the bill status page should link directly to the committee information page instead of having to decode the acronym and navigate through the website maze to figure out which committee chair is responsible for passing or killing that bill.

Session should be longer than our current, ridiculously fast-paced 60 days. We’ve got a part-time Legislature trying to fix full-time problems. These are complex issues that deserve more time for thorough research before voting.

10. Many people have talked about diversifying the local economy for many years now, and yet Hawaii is still heavily reliant on tourism. What, if anything, should be done differently about tourism and the economy?

I’m proud of the progress we’ve made during my time as vice chair of the Tourism Committee to shift away from tourism marketing towards better tourism management. Last session we passed SB 2659 and SB 3364 to incorporate regenerative rourism concepts into our destination management plans. But, we still have a long way to go.

Next year I hope to continue the work of repairing the harm done to our people and our environment by finally passing a long-overdue green fee bill to help fund improvements of our natural resources.

As a member of the Economic Development Committee, I’ve been frustrated by the committee’s focus on corporate tax breaks and weakening our regulatory framework —  ideas that seem to be rooted in “trickle-down” theory — to solve our economic woes. We need to address the root of the problem by investing in grow-our-own trade school programs, creating more affordable local education opportunities, and strengthening our labor laws so that members of our workforce don’t find themselves having to travel off-island in search of jobs with better wages and benefits.

11. An estimated 60% of Hawaii residents are struggling to get by, a problem that reaches far beyond low-income and into the middle class, which is disappearing. What ideas do you have to help the middle class and working families who are finding it hard to continue to live here?

As a person who has always had to work two or more jobs to afford to live in the same community where I was born and raised, I feel this pain deeply.

I joined the Working Families Caucus at the Legislature to support policies like paid sick leave, paid family leave, Child and Dependent Care tax credits, taxing real estate investment trusts (REITs), and more.

Every year since its inception, not a single one of the Working Families Caucus bills have been adopted by the Legislature. We don’t have a lack of policy ideas — there are many solid proposals every session that have been thoroughly vetted, implemented in other states, and studied to death in Hawaii. What we have is a lack of political will to pass legislation that will actually help our struggling residents.