Committee hears broad testimony on constitutional amendment to exclude campaign spending from state free-speech protection

The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs on March 12 heard extensive testimony on SB311 SD1, a proposed amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution that would state that freedom of speech under the state constitution "does not include the expenditure of money to influence elections."

Why it matters: Supporters said the change is aimed at reducing the outsized influence of wealthy donors and outside money in elections; opponents warned that the amendment could collide with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and prompt litigation, and that amending the state constitution is a weighty and irreversible step.

Who testified: Community Alliance on Prisons’ Kat Brady said she was "testifying in strong support of this measure" and added, "We’ve all seen the damage that too much money does to elections. It really subverts the public voice." Michael Golojuch Jr., president of Pride at Work Hawaii, told the committee the amendment was needed so "we can't have billionaires swoop in and buy elections." Cameron Hertz, state director for Common Cause Hawaii, told the panel, "We fight every day to make sure that it's 1 voice, 1 vote, not $1, 1 vote." Several veterans, faith leaders and grassroots organizers also addressed the committee, with speakers both urging passage and urging caution.

Legal concerns: Representative Mizuh requested legal analysis; Deputy Attorney General Candace Park acknowledged the request and later told the committee the attorney general's office had not submitted testimony because the amendment would have effect only if relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedents (Buckley and Citizens United) were overturned, and even then the overturning could achieve the stated policy goal without a state constitutional amendment. "This bill was assigned to me, and it's only gonna take a have an effect if the Buckley case and the Citizens United cases are overturned," Park said, adding she would follow up with the committee.

Committee action: Chair Tarnas proposed deleting language in the ballot question that referenced eventual U.S. Supreme Court decisions and moving explanatory context to the voter information pamphlet. The committee adopted that approach and defected the effective date for the measure so it can be refined before it advances. Recorded votes showed at least two committee members opposed the move; the recommendation was adopted.

Public testimony counts and balance: Committee staff recorded 14 testimonies in support, 35 in opposition and one with comments. Supporters emphasized reducing big-money influence; opponents emphasized legal risk and potential unintended consequences for First Amendment protections.

Ending: The committee’s decision to move the measure forward with a shortened ballot question leaves time for legal review and additional drafting before the bill would reach the floor or the ballot. If the Legislature ultimately places an amendment on the ballot, voters would decide whether to change the state constitution.