The Hawaii State Ethics Commission is trying to figure out how to wrangle two groups of people who are proving particularly challenging: high-level state employees who are politically active and legislators who have outside jobs with companies that have government business.  

Those were some of the issues raised in a recent New York Times and Civil Beat investigation that examined loopholes in Hawaii’s campaign spending laws. The story also identified at least one former Department of Transportation employee who hosted political fundraisers where executives of companies with state contracts donated to the campaigns of elected officials.

On Wednesday, the commission heard more about proposals to deal with those issues. Banning certain forms of political activity, requiring increased disclosure around contract negotiations and potentially banning lawmakers from outside employment could all run into obstacles, the commissioners said, whether those be legal challenges or just an unwillingness on the part of legislators to advance transparency measures.

“It’s a huge ethics dilemma,” Commissioner Beverly Tobias said at the commission’s meeting. “Once you start regulating and parsing out who this measure affects … is where you start running into problems. If there’s a way to exempt themselves from accountability, they’d find it.”

For example, one of the commission’s proposals to address lobbying around procurement decisions died this legislative session.

Senate Bill 2219 would have subjected people who communicate with government officials regarding contract proposals and negotiations to lobbyist laws requiring disclosure of those communications. It died in the House. 

The Times and Civil Beat identified at least a dozen legislators who are employed by or partially own companies that have received government contracts in recent years. 

Pairing that proposal with others that passed last year regarding increased disclosure of financial ties between lobbyists and legislators could give the public much more insight into lawmakers’ private businesses.

Executive Director Robert Harris said the commission needs to keep pushing for increased transparency around procurement and lobbying, but suggested that the proposal and others like it may not become law without the public’s support.

“It’s a matter of human nature. It’s not surprising that folks are less enthusiastic about restricting activities affecting their own financial capacity,” he said.

Harris also broached the idea of making the Legislature full-time, prohibiting outside employment and reducing the chances for potential conflicts of interest. But that would require a constitutional amendment, something that would need to win approval in the Legislature before going to voters. The commission previously declined to take a position on proposals to create a full-time Legislature.

The idea of also banning outside employment for legislators got a cold reception from the commissioners.

“I had one legislative friend tell me, ‘With my salary, I can’t live off just that,’” Ethics Commission Chairman Wesley Fong said. “It would be opening a can of worms.”

Regulating the political activity of state employees also may be difficult. 

For years, people tied to companies that have state contracts have been able to socialize with state officials in charge of their contracts in casual settings or at political fundraisers.

Cynthia Thielen, an ethics commissioner and a former legislator, implored Harris and his staff to find ways to make those kinds of engagements unethical, although banning them outright may not be possible.

“The fact that they are going to political fundraisers or being engaged in a political matter may be hard to prohibit constitutionally,” Harris said.

He added that the heads of state agencies and divisions often get their positions because of their political activities and connections.

The commissioners said they plan to continue discussing issues around contracting and lobbying disclosures ahead of the 2025 legislative session, set to begin next January.