i L i n d . n e t

The State Ethics Commission has found no evidence that State Rep. Michael Magaoay violated state ethics laws when he accepted campaign contributions from individuals associated with nonprofit organizations at the same time that he was chair of a committee that wielded control of the legislature’s grants in aid process.

The commission’s Informal Advisory Opinion 2008-1, dated April 7, 2008, does not identify Magaoay by name, but the description of the complaint clearly refers to a series stories by Honolulu Advertiser reporter Rob Perez last December that focused on Magaoay’s central role in deciding which nonprofit agencies would receive legislative grants in aid and his success in raising funds within the nonprofit community.

The commission ruled:

In this case, the Commission found that there was no evidence to support a violation of HRS section 84-13. A violation of HRS section 84-13 would need to be supported by sufficient evidence of a quid pro quo, coercion, or some actual misuse of position. HRS section 84-13 is not, and was never meant to be, an “appearance of impropriety” law. Thus, the Commission found that HRS section 84-13 was not violated by what appeared to be a mere correlation between the legislator’s duties as a legislator and the legislator’s ability to raise campaign funds.

The commission further advised:

While these practices may raise issues of concern, the Commission noted that until laws are written to change the mechanism for raising campaign contributions, the mere correlation between legislative actions and success in raising campaign funds, without evidence of coercion or a quid pro quo, or any other evidence of a misuse of position, cannot, by itself, coviolation of HRS Section 84-13.

The commission also noted Magaoay’s response to the complaint:

With respect to the news articles, the legislator asserted in his Answer that the news articles insinuated that he misused his position as a legislator, with respect to the legislative matters in question, in order to influence those interested in the matters to make campaign contributions to him. The legislator pointed out that the news articles, however, presented no evidence to indicate that the legislator had violated any provisions of the State Ethics Code. The legislator further stated that neither the news articles nor the complaint presented any evidence of a quid pro quo relationship between campaign contributions and actions taken by the legislator affecting the legislative matters in question.

Although finding no violation of ethics laws, the commission said the complaint was not “frivolous”.

The circumstances of the case, the Commission believed, would have led a reasonable person to conclude that a violation of the State Ethics Code might have occurred. However, as noted above, the Commission determined that more than a mere correlation of events is necessary to support a violation of HRS section 84-13.

For those interested, here’s a link to the conference draft of the reporters’ shield bill, which was decked yesterday.

It’s the last Friday of this year’s legislative session, and the final decking deadline for all bills. Final votes will take place next week. It’s also the last Feline Friday, requiring a few more photos from around the house. This, of course, is Mr. Toby. When we got home last night, he was waiting on top of the wall of the house down the street where his favorite twins used to live. Whether he still hopes they’ll eventually return, or perhaps just got used to that vantage point, isn’t at all clear. In any case, click on Toby for the rest of today’s felines.