Similar resolution finally being heard. Please consider submitting testimony.

Here is sample testimony submitted to the Hawaii State Senate Comittee on Judiciary and Labor which will be hearing a campaing finance measure tomorrow afternoon. Feel free to submit testimony regarding. http://capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx… Chair Keith-Agaran, Vice Chair Shimabukuro, members of the committee: I’m testifying in support of House Concurrent Resolution 29. I am pleased the Chair, and members of the committee have decided to hear this important resolution. This is an excellent first step in tackling the important and ever-worsening problem of undue influence by wealthy corporations on many of our elected officials. The resolution clearly defines some of the key shortcomings of the current campaign finance system in the United States. I would like the Committee and the Legislature to consider amending the resolution to include a recommendation for public financing of elections be included in the proposed Constitutional Amendment. This small change would add a suggested solution to the stated problem. I would also like to take this opportunity to stress the importance that this committee and this legislature continue to work towards a resolution with similar language to Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 and House Concurrent Resolution 53 from the 2015 session. Please allow me to highlight the key differences and the importance of continuing to strive for the language in those resolutions. The resolution as it stands now is basically a formal suggestion to the four individuals currently representing Hawaii in Congress, that they should together or separately compose, introduce, advocate, and eventually vote for a constitutional amendment addressing the issue of campaign finance with a specific narrow focus on ending corporate personhood and unlimited corporate political contributions, but these are only two parts of a much larger problem, and this path is neither the only path to a constitutional convention nor is it in my humble opinion the most effective path to an amendment addressing this particular issue. I support passing this resolution, but I also support using every tool available to try to fix the problems identified. That is why I also strongly support passage of a concurrent resolution directly petitioning the United States Congress to call a Constitutional Convention via petition from the legislatures of 2/3rds of the states which is the other path to proposing constitutional amendments described in Article V of the United States Constitution. I firmly believe that this is the more effective path towards actually achieving an amendment on this specific issue, because this would be an amendment like few others before it. This would be an amendment specifically targeted at regulating the behavior of members of the United States Congress. This means that no matter how much confidence we have in the individuals we have elected to represent the great State of Hawaii in Washington, we, by virtue of the very nature of the problem we are trying to correct, can not necessarily hold the same confidence in the other 531 members of Congress. We can’t trust such an important issue, which has the ability to influence and undermine every legislative, executive, and judicial effort to represent the interests of the people to the very legislative body which this resolution implies may have already been unduly influenced against the passage of such an amendment. Free and fair elections are the basis upon which our republic and all lower forms of government within function. The issue is too important to trust to a Congress which has so far refused to even acknowledge the problem. The issue is too persistent and long-standing in our nation going back much further than 2010 when Citizens United was decided, and the issue has only gotten worse. The undue influence to members of Congress is already probably far too wide spread to believe that they will be the first to act. In the vast majority of Congressional Elections, money spent on the campaign correlates directly with being elected, incumbents win nearly all Congressional seats, a few brave members of Congress complain of regularly spending way too much time in uncomfortable call centers soliciting the very donations this resolution seeks to end, and inevitably spending a disproportionate amount of time and resources listening to and addressing donor concerns, and many, possibly most end up making promises to their donors. This resolution by definition is directly opposed to the concerns of Congressional donors. If there is even the slightest doubt that the undue influence of campaign contributions has already spread to too much of the Congress to make passage of an amendment proposed by Congress feasible, then we must pursue a convention called by the States. The path towards a convention called by the States is already enjoying overwhelming support from both chambers of the Hawaii State Legislature. This is evidenced by the fact that in 2015, just last session, HCR 53 was approved by the House by a 45-0 vote. HCR 53 was a measure which directly petitioned Congress for a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3rds of the State Legislatures and more directly identified the potential for a corrupting influence from campaign contributions. HCR 53 also specifically suggested that the proposed amendment to fix the problem include provisions for public financing of elections. It also reminded the Congress of the states which have already passed similar resolutions so that Congress could properly identify and count the number of states petitioning for such an amendment and hold a convention when 2/3rds of the States had petitioned as such. This session SCR 40 has nearly identical language, and thus is substantively the same as HCR 53 from 2015 on all of the points mentioned. Between HCR 53 and SCR 40, this language has passed through every relevant committee except this one with only one legislator ever voting no. Additionally SCR 40 lists as introducers 3 members of this committee including Vice Chair Shimabukuro. The Attorney General has even weighed in on these resolutions and only offered a few clarifying amendments which were adopted in SCR 40 SD 1. This leads me to believe that this legislature and this committee have the power and support necessary to pass a resolution with the language of HCR 53 and SCR 40 if it is made a priority. As for those citizens who feel as I do, we will continue to strive for the passage of such a resolution. As I’ve stated, the issue is too important, and obstacles to passage via the route of Congress are too great not to pursue such a measure. If the Legislature is unable due to the tight legislative schedule to pass such a resolution during the regular session, then we will call upon Governor Ige to call a special session to address this topic. Personally, as a lay person, I would support this committee today adopting an amendment to this resolution which basically deletes every word and inserts the language of HCR 53 and SCR 40. This legislature has done this before with other measures, and I believe it has been demonstrated that the House would support such language, and that the committee on Public Safety, Intergovernmental, and Military Affairs, which passed SCR 40 earlier this session, would support this language as well. If, however, this committee feels strongly in favor of the resolution as written, or if there are procedural complications I’m unaware of, then I do in fact support passage of this measure as a great beginning and a great complimentary measure to the eventual passage of a resolution using the language of HCR 53 and SCR 40. Thank you.