Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Campaign Contributions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ban on contractor and grantee contributions for large awards, requires disclosures
Summary
The committee voted to pass HB 371 with amendments that bar state or county contractors/grantees and their officers and adult immediate family members from making political contributions during large contracts or grants, subject to thresholds; agencies will provide name disclosures to the Campaign Spending Commission on a password-protected site.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary voted to pass House Bill 371 with amendments that expand the existing ban on contributions by state contractors to include certain grantees and to require disclosure of officers and adult immediate family members for larger contracts and grants.
Bonnie Kahakui, administrator of the State Procurement Office, testified with written comments expressing concerns about administrative burden and applicability across contract values. Kristen Izumi Nizumi Tao, executive director of the Campaign Spending Commission, said the measure is meant to address pay‑to‑play practices and would require agencies to report contractor and grantee officers and adult family members to the commission.
Committee amendments limit the disclosure requirement to contracts of $100,000 or more for goods/services and $250,000 or more for construction, to address procurement-office resource concerns. The amendments also direct the executing office to collect lists of officers and adult family members at contract execution and make the information available to the Campaign Spending Commission in a password‑protected area for compliance purposes.
Supporters (League of Women Voters, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action and others) argued the bill would increase transparency; some members noted First Amendment concerns for family members and recorded reservations. The committee adopted the amended measure; one senator noted reservations about first‑amendment implications for family members.
