-
Should Hawaii's disclosure law be strengthened? If so, in what ways? Consensus: Contributions as well as expenditures should be covered by the law. Disclosure should be made before elections, with a cut-off date for receipt of contributions before the election. The law should define contributions. Consensus was assumed on the matter of requiring candidates to set up campaign treasuries and depositories because most units supported the National Municipal League's Model Law and/or the Florida Law, to which this provision is central. Three units wanted all groups and organizations receiving and expending funds on behalf of a candidate to be covered by the disclosure law (this is a provision of the NML law and the Florida law, but was not specifically mentioned by the other units).
Minority Opinion: A considerable number, including the majority of one unit, felt that there was no real need to change the law in Hawaii. Some felt that we should not be so suspicious of our politicians.
-
Should there be legal ceilings on contributions or expenditures? Consensus: All units agreed that there should be no ceilings on contributions. One unit felt that to limit contributions would be to curtail the rights of the individual. Another said there was no need to limit contributions if disclosure was adequate.
Opinion was divided on the matter of limiting expenditures; units will be queried again on this item.
Is some sort of campaign subsidy feasible in Hawaii? Consensus: The units did not favor any direct form of campaign subsidy. Many units felt it would be desirable to have a campaign pamphlet mailed to all constituents giving equal free space to all candidates. Every unit that discussed the pamphlet favored it; the other units will
be queried to see if we have consensus.
Sue Cowing
Chairman Campaign Finance Study
January 1969
February 1970
Second Call to Convention