HomeMy WebLinkAbout 06/10/2015 Committee of the Whole minutes MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
June 10, 2015
A meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the County of Kauai, State of
Hawaii, was called to order by Mel Rapozo, Chair, at the Council Chambers,
4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, June 10, 2015, at
8:48 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Excused: Honorable Ross Kagawa
The Committee proceeded on its agenda item, as shown in the following
Committee Report, which is incorporated herein by reference:
CR-COW 2015-06: on Bill No. 2588 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR
BARGAINING UNITS 2, 3, AND 4
BETWEEN JULY 1, 2015 AND
JUNE 30, 2017 [Approved as
Amended.]
The Committee proceeded on its agenda item, as follows:
Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1 RESOLUTION URGING HAWAII'S
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
TO ADDRESS EXCESSIVE
CAMPAIGN SPENDING BY
PROPOSING AND PASSING
AMENDMENTS CLARIFYING THAT
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
IN PARTICULAR ELECTORAL
RIGHTS, AND THAT UNLIMITED
CAMPAIGN SPENDING IS NOT
FREE SPEECH (This item was
Deferred.)
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of Resolution No. 2015-44,
Draft 1, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Kuali`i.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 2 JUNE 10, 2015
Councilmember Kuali`i: For starters Chair, I would like to read the
Resolution into the record.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE
OF HAWAII:
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution is intended to protect the rights
of individual human beings ("natural persons"); and
WHEREAS, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution, and the
people of the United States ("The People") have never granted constitutional rights
to corporations, nor decreed that corporations have authority that exceeds the
authority of The People; and
WHEREAS, corporations can and do make important contributions to our
society using advantages that government has wisely granted them, but
corporations should not be considered natural persons; and
WHEREAS, in a 1938 opinion, United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo
Black stated, "I do not believe the word `person' in the Fourteenth Amendment
includes corporations"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce (1990), recognized as a threat to a republican form of
government "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth
that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no
correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (2010) ("Citizens United") reversed the decision in Austin by
rolling back legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process and allowing
unlimited corporate spending to sway votes and influence elections, candidate
selection, and policy decisions; and
WHEREAS, the majority decision in Citizens United was recognized as a
serious threat to self-government by the four dissenting justices. Corporations have
special advantages not enjoyed by natural persons, such as limited liability,
perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of
assets. These advantages allow them to amass and spend prodigious sums on
campaign messages that often have far greater reach and influence than messages
from individuals; and
WHEREAS, most corporations put profits for shareholders ahead of the
greatest good of society while individuals as natural persons have more freedom to
balance self-interest and the broader public interest (or to see that their
self-interest is intertwined with the broader public interest) when making political
decisions; and
WHEREAS, corporations have used the power and rights bestowed upon
them by the courts to overturn democratically enacted laws that were passed at
municipal, state, and federal levels to curb corporate abuse, thereby impairing local
governments' ability to protect their citizens against corporate harm to the
environment, to health, to workers, to independent businesses, and to local and
regional economies; and
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 3 JUNE 10, 2015
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court rightly held in Buckley v.
Valeo (1976) that the appearance of corruption justified limits on contributions to
candidates, but it wrongly ruled that spending money to influence elections is a
form of constitutionally protected free speech, thus giving rise to the "money as
speech" doctrine; and
WHEREAS, federal courts in Buckley and in SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010)
overturned limits on independent expenditures because the "corruption or
perception of corruption" rationale was only applicable to direct contributions to
candidates; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in 1st National Bank of
Boston v. Bellotti (1978) and Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of
Berkeley (1986) unbelievably rejected limits on contributions to ballot measure
campaigns because the contributions pose no threat of candidate corruption; and
WHEREAS, United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens observed in
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) that "money is property, it is not
speech"; and
WHEREAS, a February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that
eighty percent (80%) of Americans oppose the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United
ruling; and
WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution allows The People of
the various states to amend the U.S. Constitution to correct those egregiously wrong
decisions of the United States Supreme Court that challenge our democratic
principles and the republican form of self-government; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, that corporations should not be endowed with the same
constitutional rights as natural persons and because money is not speech, limits on
political spending should be allowed to protect First Amendment rights and ensure
a "fair playing field" in the arena of politics and public decision-making.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the County of Kaua`i
supports amending the United States Constitution to achieve campaign finance
equity reform by ending the false doctrine of"corporate constitutional rights" in the
arena of elections and voting, and by clarifying that money is property, not speech;
and by allowing limits on campaign contributions and spending.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council supports efforts by citizen
groups to amend the United States Constitution toward these ends.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be transmitted to
United States Senator Brian Schatz, United States Senator Mazie Hirono,
United States Representative Mark Takai, United States Representative Tulsi
Gabbard, Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., Governor David Y. Ige, State Senate
President Ronald D. Kouchi, and Speaker of the State House of Representatives
Joe Souki.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Councilmember Kuali`i.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 4 JUNE 10, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, as the co-introducer of this
Resolution, I want to thank Sandra Herndon and other citizens who brought this
issue to us and thank our staff person Aida Okasaki, who did great research on this,
calling our congressional offices, and providing background research. Peter
Morimoto also helped with some of that. This is a very important Resolution and
issue and I would like to say it is as important as the Constitutional Amendment
that gave women the right to vote. It is going to take that very long past to reach
achieving our goal, but it is well worth it and very, very important in order to make
our democracy work.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I just want to say that I support this one
hundred percent (100%), the intent of it, you know? There should be limits on
corporate contributions, but I have a problem supporting the Resolution as it is
written, based on the generalizations in it and some of the statements. When I read
the part of the Resolution that states, "Whereas February 2010 Washington Post
ABC news poll found that eighty percent (80%) of Americans opposed the U.S.
Supreme Court Citizens United ruling," it sounds like eighty percent (80%) of
Americans voted to oppose it. But when I read the actual article they only polled
one thousand four (1,004) adults. For me, if we just kept the Resolution simple and
to the point, I could support it one hundred percent (100%). But when we start
putting in information, like this, it kind of makes me sway away from it. I just
want it to be to the point and correct. I think everybody knows what the intent of it
is and everybody would agree to it and we do not necessarily need information like
this in it. Another one is "most corporations put profits for shareholders above the
greatest good for society." It is a big statement and I do not think it needs to be in
there. I would support it without this information in it and I looked up, the House
of Representatives floated a resolution in 2010 and it was very simple and very to
the point. If we do resolutions just keep it straight and to the point. We could even
follow the resolution that the House did. They just laid it out very quickly, very
simply. Just based on that reason alone, I was thinking should I try to amend it or
do it, but in reality, I am only one vote and I realize it is going to pass and I want it
to pass. I agree with the intent, but just the way it is written is what I do not really
agree with. So I will not be supporting it at this time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify,
comment? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I would speak to support the Resolution in
its entirety and the message that I think it represents. While I do agree with
Councilmember Kaneshiro, that I think it would probably be stronger for me if it
did not include some of those generalizations, it would be better for me. But,
because of the intent, I will be supporting it. It is amazing how we have actually
come to this place to have this discussion, and so from that standpoint, I think it is
a no-brainer. I would agree in terms of resolutions, I noticed that when we do get to
the writing of it and I am guilty of it too, we like to go further in getting people to
understand sort of our point of view in what the message is. I can respect that,
because we are passion about it. It is not so bad with this Resolution, because it
does not really have a whole lot of power behind it. I agree with the message in its
entirety and I would like to thank Councilmember Kuali`i for bringing it forward.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 5 JUNE 10, 2015
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just in response. With any resolution, you
can have a lot of whereas statements or you can have less. If those are the only two
whereas statements that would prevent us from getting a unanimous vote, I would
be happy to remove them. I think the most important thing about this Resolution is
that there is a national movement to change the current situation which is harming
the average citizen and our ability to participate in the political process. The two
primary components, and if you go to the website "Move to Amend" which is one of
the groups that is working on this...and it is called wethepeopleamendment.org, the
two primary points of this is that money is not speech and that corporations are not
people. They are not natural persons with full rights of the Constitution. If those
are the two principles and we all agree on that unanimously, what shows up in
these whereas statements are not as important to me, and I would happily move to
take them out, the two that were mentioned.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I really appreciate this discussion, and I am
glad that we moved this into Committee so we could have the discussion and also
the additional testimony and education. As the co-sponsor of this Resolution, I am
open to amendments that will make it more accurate and, in fact, I have just edited
the piece that Councilmember Kaneshiro has pointed out, so that we could make it
read, "Whereas in a February 2010 Washington Post ABC News poll, eighty percent
(80%) of those polled opposed the United States Supreme Court Citizens United
ruling," which I believe would then make it accurate. As for the whereas clause
that most corporations put profits for shareholders ahead of the greatest good, I
edited this Resolution prior to introduction. I think it said, the draft that we
started with said, "Corporations put profits before shareholders." Now they have a
public good law that allows corporations to not just do things that are good for the
shareholder, but are also good for society. I forget what it is called, but I believe we
even have that option in Hawai`i now. Corporations can choose to be that kind of
corporation, which comes out of the sustainability movement that recognizes that
we all have to be concerned not just about the bottom line for corporations, but the
bottom line for society, which is the environment. And so this is actually accurate,
because most corporations are structured so the board of directors would violate
their fiduciary duty if they did things for the sake of public good or for the
environment and it did not increase their profits. That is their legal constraint, and
requirement. So actually, until recently, it was true that all corporations would put
profits before shareholders. But, now with this new form of corporation that is
allowed, it is most corporations that put profits for shareholders ahead of public
good.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I will be supporting this and feel it does not
go far enough in calling out corporate abuse in many sectors of our society. If you
look at the control of industry and governments, you will find corporate influence is
deep in all sectors. And often times these corporations are not even owned by the
people in their communities, or the country. And yet, they are spending enormous
amounts of money to influence politics, to influence food systems, pharmaceuticals,
insurance, you name it. The corporate influence is really great. I think it does not
go far enough. It is true what Councilmember Yukimura said that the vast
majority of corporations are charter-mandated to put profits first and mentioned
another kind of corporation and I am happy to say that I sponsored a bill that
passed into law in the Legislature, establishing what they call B-Corps or benefit
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 6 JUNE 10, 2015
corporations, which allow corporations to select that form of structure, but it is a
very small minority who do that. If people look at the history of corporations, they
will say see that corporations were formed initially as public interest, charitable
kind of organizations and they were not for-profit entities, they were for public
things, not for-profit, and not for private. Initially, they had limited terms and
initially they could not give money to campaigns. And over time, corporations have
increased their power. So now they will outlive all of us, and they cannot be
executed in Texas, as was mentioned at a prior...they can commit crimes, but they
cannot be punished to the same degree as individuals can. And so I think this is
the "6,000-pound gorilla in the room" of our society from a global stance. The more I
am involved with government and politics, the more I come to that realization. I
think it is a good step and I applaud Councilmember Yukimura and Councilmember
Kualii for putting it forward. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I mean, again, it is just my opinion. I do
think it is a very general statement to say "most corporations put profits for
shareholders ahead of the greatest good for society." I would be comfortable taking
it out. You take out the poll...I would vote for it. But just, I mean, I do not know.
We can argue...I am sure there are corporations that put profit ahead of
shareholders sometimes, but I am sure there are some that do not. For me, that is
where the gray line is. I am not that comfortable with a broad statement like that.
If they want to put profits ahead of the greatest good of society, why do they do
anything? I would dump all the produce in the stream and do things that...that
would not be good for society. I think for the most part they do and that is my
opinion. Others may have other opinions. That is why I am just not that
comfortable with that generalized statement. Going back to the poll, to say eighty
percent (80%) of Americans oppose the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United ruling.
I do not think it is as strong once you know they only polled one thousand (1,000)
people. Again, I would support this thing, if we just kept it simple. I would support
it one hundred percent (100%). The main thing on this is that corporate
contributions should be limited. Right now it is unlimited, and it does not have
anything to do with our County of Kauai government, or State. It is for the Federal
government. For me, there should be limits. There are limits on us here, that
people contribute. I do whole-heartedly agree with that, but when we put in these
generalized statement it is really hard for me to support it. Again, I am only one
vote and that is my own opinion. You know, other Councilmembers may have the
opinion that these are one hundred percent (100%) correct. But I am just saying
that if that was in there and the other one is in there, I am not that comfortable
voting on it. If it was out, I would vote for it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just real briefly. I think the poll question, if
that is an issue, I certainly do not have a problem with this. I think the legal
obligation of corporations is to generate profits. And if they generate less profits
that they are able to, because they do some special environmental protections or
they pay more...say a corporation pays more than market and earns less profits,
their shareholders can sue them. That is the reality of the environment, the legal
structure in which they work. I do not think anyone is saying that the people in
charge do not care about the community and they certainly want to be following the
laws, and so they will be following the laws that are in place. If they sacrifice profit
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 7 JUNE 10, 2015
to do more than that, then they are legally liable. That is really the fundamental
nexus of that statement. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I also want to point out and that is
true, I think in that paragraph that concerns Councilmember Kaneshiro about
corporations, it actually states a fact. It is a legal obligation of corporations. Unless
they are registered under this other new form of corporations. But I wanted to
point out that the third whereas in the Resolution does acknowledge that
corporations can and do make important contributions to our society. And that
sometimes the making of profits is a good thing for society. We are not saying that
it is always bad, but we are just saying that sometimes making profits conflicts with
the general good of the community. I also want to say that the resolution before
Congress or introduced in Congress a congressional resolution that is initiating the
process of a Constitutional Amendment is very different than a resolution that we
are doing here. Because this Resolution is taking a stand of this County Council on
the issue. The resolution in Congress is initiating a Constitutional Amendment.
And so I believe...I love the simplicity of those Congressional Amendments. They
are basically...they have to keep it simple is what I understand. Because it is going
to be the vehicle that is approved by three-quarters of the Legislatures in the
country, because that is the process required. So they have to keep it simple. On
the other hand, we are just taking a stand. It is not a mandatory, binding stand,
but persuasive stand that expresses the intent and position of the Kaua`i County
Council. The idea is that county councils around the country would take a stand to
establish a momentum for this Constitutional Amendment, which is going to take a
huge wave of support and intention by the people of the United States in order for
this Constitutional Amendment to pass.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me just say and we are going to take
public testimony. I would suggest that rather than introducing amendments from
the proponents, we will let Councilmember Kaneshiro propose the amendments that
he is satisfied with. Because no sense you introduce an amendment that he does not
support. Because we are going to go through this all day long. This is a resolution.
It would be great to get unanimous support, but we may not. No sense trying to
convince him and take a recess...no, let us have him create the amendments that
would be necessary, if he even wants to, for his support, and then we can move on. I
do want to get to public testimony as well.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to say that I heard his
comments, and he said that he was not interested in making an amendment. That
is why I offered as the initiator to make that amendment to have unanimous
support. I have that amendment being worked on, which would move out the two
whereas statements and wanted to show what we have from the House resolution
and the two primary points. I am going try to read it if that is okay. This is from
the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. House Joint Resolution 48 that
was introduced on April 29, 2014. The two primary sections: Section 1 deals with
artificial entities such as corporations do not have constitutional rights. So the
rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural
persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any state, the United
States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are
subject to regulations by the people, through Federal, State, or local law. The
privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the people through Federal,
State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable. In
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 8 JUNE 10, 2015
Section 2, money is not free speech. Federal, State, and local governments shall
regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures including a candidate's
own contributions and expenditures to ensure that all citizens regardless of their
economic status have access to the political process and that no person gains as a
result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way,
the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. That is the
simple meat of it and that is what we are trying to get to. So without those two
whereas statements, I think the Resolution basically says that we support the
national movement to...end money is speech and to end corporations are natural
beings with inalienable rights.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. That is being worked on right
now? With that, is there anyone in the audience wishing to testify? I will suspend
the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
SANDRA HERNDON: Sandra Herndon, for the record. Aloha Chair
Rapozo and Councilmembers. I am so grateful that you have brought this forward.
Big, big mahalo to Councilmembers Kuali`i and Yukimura for all the work on this. I
have been listening to your comments, and I am just kind of going off of what I had
prepared. I wanted to address what Councilmember Kaneshiro said about the
eighty percent (80%). That is a striking number, and I have to say that eighty
percent (80%) of the people who know about this are opposed to it. There are so
many people that do not even realize that this is one of the biggest things that is
running our country. I was appalled when I would talk to people and ask them to
sign this resolution and clearly, this is not ten percent (10%) of the island's people.
But what it signifies is that people are not aware, and it is for us, the ones who do
understand, that this is huge flaw in our democracy, to allow this type of
contributions and influence to affect our government. The thing that really
concerns me the most about the way the government is being run at that time in
general, is that it really impacts home rule. And contrary to what Councilmember
Kaneshiro has said about it not affecting our County, it does. I see the yellow light.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have thirty (30) seconds.
Ms. Herndon: Thank you. So it does. It affects the air we
breathe. It affects the water that we drink. It affects the very land that we grow
our food on. And as you all know, there are certain aspects of that that are very,
very close to my heart. So in closing...
Council Chair Rapozo: You can come back if you want to come back
and have another three minutes.
Ms. Herndon: Mahalo from the bottom of my heart.
FELICIA COWDEN: Aloha, I am Felicia Cowden and I want to
echo the appreciation that our Kaua`i County Council is taking in the statement
that is really about all of the United States of America. It affects the County, the
State, and the Federal government. I think it is really key. This is, as
Councilmember Yukimura said, as big as the women's right to vote. And it is being
echoed across the country without the support of the major media. The major media
is owned pretty much by the very entities that will be affected by this. So only some
people are even aware of what is happening. I feel like that is a really, really
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 9 JUNE 10, 2015
critical piece. I am sorry, I am so distracted by conversation...I cannot concentrate
when you guys are not listening. I thank you for it and what I feel is very
important is that second whereas that Councilmember Kaneshiro was struggling
with. The first one, it will become a little bit dated if we talk about an ABC poll.
This is something that history will look back on, and corporations, their fiduciary
responsibility to put the profit and bottom-line first is fact. That is not an opinion.
And it is essentially the mens rea of the whole problem. You can have wonderful
people who work in these corporations and I think of Patagonia or different lines
that do really nice things, but still yet, they have to make the best financial decision
and that is their responsibility by law. So that needs to be in there, because this is
something that will be looked at again and again when we look backwards. And so
if we do not say the reason why that this is so important, it really, really weakens
the entire essence of the message that is being sent. I hope that you,
Councilmember Kaneshiro, rethink that piece because it is very critical. Having a
unanimous vote matters, but I would rather see a non-unanimous vote than to leave
out that very essential piece that says why this is so very important. And so I echo
the speaker before me, is we see it especially at the municipal-level. The small
rural communities, they cannot stand up to these global economics that are just
overwhelming our island and all across the world really. We are moving towards a
concentration of power that is profound. We saw these five banks basically not even
get in trouble for clear violations. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
ELAINE VALOIS: I want to thank you for bringing this into
public view and discussing it honestly, deeply, and sincerely. My question is this,
yes, corporations do good. They give us really great television programs. They also
offer a lot of their money, but maybe one percent (1%) of their profits to this, but
whatever the percentage is they also do not have to pay taxes on that money that
they give. And that is also understandably one of the motives for giving. And I am
not complaining about that, but Citizens United is another issue. Do not connect
these two things, because they do some good, does not mean that they do what they
want to do with impunity, what they feel they want to do on the world stage. That
has catastrophic implications for democracy. This issue of Citizens United, which I
am fascinated by the title. It should have been Corporations United, right?
Absolutely. And then if you have got a good imagination, you might say what more
could they do in the future, besides sway elections? What is in there that allows
them to do more than that? I just want to quote something here, corporations of our
politics induced by big money control of our elections is blocking progress on every
issue. Mr. Koch said of course that just the opposite, that democracy is blocking
progress. And I thought yes, his progress. It will affect the creation of jobs, raising
the minimum wage, adopting a fair tax system, passing a Federal budget that
serves the broad interests of the American people, winning fair trade rules,
preventing catastrophic climate change, addressing wealth and income inequality,
ensuring healthcare for all, and more. They are not in it just for the elections.
What they do will affect the climate, believe me. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
will affect the climate, and will affect a lot more than we even know. The potential
of this amendment...amendment to the Constitution.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is your first three minutes. You are
allowed three minutes and you can come back after everyone else comes back, you
can come back a second time.
Ms. Valois: You distracted me.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 10 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sorry, you have three (3) minutes, this
is your first time here.
Ms. Valois: That is all right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anyone else wishing to speak a
second time? I mean first time...we still have a list? Ma'am, you will have to come
back after the other speakers.
Ms. Valois: I suggest a democracy for all amendments.
Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker.
KIP GOODWIN: Thank you, Councilmember Kuali`i and
Councilmember Yukimura, for introducing this Resolution. Thank you, Chairman,
for putting it on the agenda. Back in 1907, the Tillman Act was the first
Congressional legislation to ban direct corporate contributions in elections. Since
that time, in modern times from John F. Kennedy to Bernie Sanders and from
Barry Goldwater to John McCain, our elected leaders have recognized the coercive
influence of money in politics. The opinion polls that have been referenced are all
across political ideologies and I think it is fair to say that among those right here on
Kaua`i, who understand this issue, that your constituents would hold the same to be
true. Republican Senator Warren Rudman said in a few words, "Free speech can
hardly be free if only the rich are heard." Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Kip, for being here. So you are
saying historically both sides, the Republicans and Democrats, the McCains and the
Kennedys essentially have been in support of campaign spending limits?
Mr. Goodwin: That is right. And these opinion polls are
taken among Republicans, Independents, Democrats, and they all line up the same.
They are all equally opposed to this Supreme Court decision.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker.
MATTHEW BERNABE: Good morning everybody. Matt Bernabe, for
the record. I would like to start off with saying this title "Citizens United"
absolutely makes sense to me. Because if you read the Constitution, it starts with a
citizen is a white male property owner and this is how this percentile of the
population still views their status. So it totally makes sense why they would go and
name it Citizens United. This issue incited me to get more involved to the point
that I am here today in front of the Council several months in, because of this issue.
I served in the military and I watch the news and followed this very well and in real
time, when it started to happen, it stated to incite anger in me, because I served in
two branches of the service; military and armed forces, and I did not serve to defend
corporate entity rights. I did not serve to defend the Constitution for the rights of
corporate entities that have no life span, no accountability, and now we are going to
afford them all of our perks as United States citizens, you got to be out of your
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 11 JUNE 10, 2015
minds. It made me mad. It made me mad that when everybody was going
anti-GMO, I was telling them, no, that is a symptom, let us go after the disease.
This is one of the diseases. On this timeline that he is talking about, Mr. Kidman
and I had watched this several years ago, David Cobb came down to Kaua`i and I
brought my teenage daughter. She was about twelve (12) at the time. When we
left, she and I, after the four hours we were so educated in this process that we have
today, started in 1814. They gave us these little pamphlets. I do not have it today
because I gave it to somebody to study. It had all the timelines and benchmark
rulings or legislative bodies or something amended to where we are today. And it
does not even end in 2010. It actually ends in 2014. Because since Citizens United,
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the think-tank that created this
for that citizens one percent (1%), has come up with more. And of all of the things
that I know this affects, which we could on for days how this affects us individually.
It is actually the stuff that I do not know that this ruling does. Right? I am only
educated to one point. But precedence has all kinds of ways that good lawyers get
to put it in if it is unchallenged and they find ways to make it work for them. I am
going talk again, some more, I am not done obviously. I will leave it at that,
because that is my last thirty (30) seconds and I will come back for my second three
(3) minutes. For sure.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Matt. Good morning.
ELIZABETH DIAMOND: Good morning. Elizabeth Diamond. First of
all, thank all so very, very much for your service to our community. We really
appreciate your position on this. I want to say that at the very least Citizens
United is ridiculous. And at the very worst it is diabolical and will affect every
single human being in our country and eventually across the planet in the worst
way possible.. We cannot even imagine at this point. So you have my one hundred
percent (100%) support, and permission to go and do what it takes to get rid of this
horrible, horrible amendment. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next speaker.
PUANANI ROGERS: E welina mai kakou. Congratulations Mel,
for your Chairmanship. This is the first time I have come before you since the new
election. Congratulations to all of you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Rogers: Mahalo. So far, I think Mel you are doing a
good job. You have got the experience. You have got the expertise and I think
intelligence to run our Council. All of you, I commend all of you. KipuKai, maika`i
loa you are on the Council...okay, just this morning I am a little
"Johnny-come-lately" on this issue, because I do realize that there were other
meetings on this subject before. I was just reminded of the gravity of this issue and
it is global. And I have opinions about globalization. For a long time, I was against
elections, because I never thought that they were pono. It always, to me, it always
was he who has the most money wins. So there are times when I did not even vote.
I was so against it. I think there might be a way that we can somehow change that
kind of election system, where it would be fairer. I just read this morning on the
computer this petition that said the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United
decision in 2010 opened the door for right wing special interests to spend unlimited
amounts of money to rig elections. And I supported it on the internet and I support
your Resolution as well. I am here to boost your efforts in this. I would like to
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 12 JUNE 10, 2015
make one comment about my feelings on globalization, and that has to do with
global industries and all of the hewa that they are doing to indigenous countries by
taking over their governments, and raping them of their natural resources. Not
having respect for cultural issues in these countries. Case in point Mauna Kea. It is
a globalization move, this building of telescopes and I hope that you folks are also in
support of our movement to protect our sacred sites. And scared sites all over the
world that is being impacted by globalization and corporations like we are talking
about.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. You can come back as well.
Ms. Rogers: Mahalo, I am done. I support you guys.
DOUG SMITH: Good morning, my name is Doug Smith. I
only expected to be here observing, but this was brought up, and it is certainly part
of what life is about, which is transforming the world into what the world needs to
be. What we dreamed of in the '60s and '70s, has not been fulfilled yet, and I am
here to be part of that being fulfilled. And very often I remind people about Dwight
David Eisenhower's farewell address, warning the nation about the military
industrial complex and this is a key piece of that. That is all I have to say for now,
but I think you will see me in terms of the homeless...I will call them "shelterless /
people forced to live in their vehicles / lower-income people" are going to unite and
hold elected officials, corporations, and other entities, non-profits, accountable.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Smith, thank you for being here. I have a
question. So I just want to be clear, you are in support of this Resolution?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith: And more like it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. That was it. Anyone else
wishing to speak a second time? We will go in the order...
Ms. Herndon: Sandra Herndon, again. And actually, this is
a very brief comment and it is a quote from a friend of mine. Because actually, most
of what I wanted to cover has been already brought forward by other speakers. But
my friend said, you know, I will believe corporations are persons when they get the
death penalty. That is all I want to say. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Cowden: Felicia Cowden, for the record. It was
brought up ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership was brought up. We have seen when legislation happens
in one area we have a cascading effect going down and to have a movement as
profound as what is happening with this move to amend, whereas the states can
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 13 JUNE 10, 2015
make that choice rather than leaving it to the House of Representatives and the
Senate. That can influence other behavior also. So I am really glad when counties
and municipalities across the country are standing up and it is happening all over. I
believe there are at least thirteen (13) states now that have put their name in to be
ready to move to amend the U.S. Constitution. It would be the 28th Amendment.
Hopefully, this will help to hit the tipping point that slows a very large corporate
takeover of even nation-states. For people who might be watching, that are
unaware of what this is, this is a very, very big deal. And it is not by accident that
people are not aware of what is happening. So again, please leave that second
whereas in there. We need to have the real meaning behind what is happening.
Thank you so much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next.
Ms. Valois: Someone said...I do not know exactly who it
was, but said "Do not knock democracy; it has not been tried yet." We have been
thinking about it, as Bobby Kennedy said, "And the dream lives on." I think it is
time for us to not think about returning to anything of the past, but to reinstate
what we believe democracy is. And this particular amendment, as we have all said,
is shockingly dangerous. Never mind donations to good causes. I just wanted to say
that we need to reinstate the dream, and there are several people who have tried to
establish something called the Transformational Fair Elections Now Act. I do not
know if you have heard about it. But we need to reinstate a counter amendment.
But in the meantime, the best we can do right now is to state our feelings about it,
our attitude towards it, and our willingness or unwillingness to support it. Thank
you so much for being involved with this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. We have a question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Thank you. Just to be clear, you are in
support of an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn?
Ms. Valois: Absolutely. Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: The court ruling?
Ms. Valois: Yes, of course.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anybody else wishing to speak a second
time? Mr. Bernabe.
Mr. Bernabe: Matt Bernabe, for the record. Okay, so I
already covered the corporate side of this. I will go to the money is speech side of
this. If money is free speech, by default, that makes speech no longer free. It is just
logic coming from a "Kapahi cruiser"...or equal and fair for sure. I was not here this
morning to hear Councilmember Kaneshiro's position, but you know, and this is not
an insult. This is just the reality of where we are at. It is no shock to me that he is
the one dissent, because his whole entire economic life other than this Council is
supported by a corporate entity that is benefitted by this. That is not a bad thing,
by no means. I am not knocking that at all. In fact, I am praising Safeway and that
subdivision, I have been telling everybody how God set it there for the Kapa'a traffic
problem. If the public has an opinion...because nobody here is not supporting this.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 14 JUNE 10, 2015
Everybody in this audience right now is supporting you moving forward on this. I
just want to say if anybody out there who you represent is against this language,
and this position, please let them come up and testify. I would love to hear the
arguments against this. But to me, this is a no-brainer. Just by the logic that I put
forth on the first sentence of the second testimony. I support this full-heartedly. I
am assuming if it does not pass today we will have more discussion on this. I do not
know...it has to go to the full Council, I guess. I hope you push this forward. All we
are asking is, for a letter of support basically and not asking for allocations of long-
term funding or anything like that, just asking for the initial cost to draft the
Resolution and send it to the Mayor, the Governor, and what not? Thank you very
much and send it to Brian Schatz and Tulsi and every delegate and every Senator
and every House member should get a letter from us, I think.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you have a question? Do you have a
comment?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Kind of a clarifying...
Mr. Bernabe: I did not hear your position. So I just left it
general.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I will just make it quick. To clarify my
position, I said in the very beginning that I support this one hundred percent
(100%).
Mr. Bernabe: Perfect.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: The way the Resolution is written, there are
a lot of generalizations in it that I do not necessarily think need to be in it, like the
polls and things and only a thousand (1,000) people were polled and to say eighty
percent (80%) of Americans are in favor of it...I support the intent and I said if you
keep it shorter, succinct, and accurate, I will support it. If we add in the
generalizations, and you will probably see the generalizations that I had problems
with...excuse me.
Council Chair Rapozo: Excuse me.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: When the generalizations come up, we have
amendments for that.
Mr. Bernabe: I would gladly...
Council Chair Rapozo: Matt, I just allowed him, because it was
posed as a question and I wanted you to be clear. I think once we get back into
discussion and see the amendments, you will understand. I actually agree with
Councilmember Kaneshiro as far as the generalizations.
Mr. Bernabe: Like I said, I am not trying to buck the
horse. I am glad to hear that he supports the notion one hundred percent (100%).
That is important to me. As somebody mentioned earlier, I would love a unanimous
vote moving forward with this. Thank you very much and thank you for clarifying,
too.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 15 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? You need to bring someone up?
The rules are still suspended.
Councilmember Yukimura: Ms. Diamond.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ms. Diamond, could you come back up,
please?
Ms. Diamond: Elizabeth Diamond.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for your testimony. I just wanted
to clarify, because your last sentence was "do away with this terrible amendment."
Ms. Diamond: I probably used the wrong words.
Councilmember Yukimura: Am I to understand that you are against the
Supreme Court ruling and in favor of an amendment that would overturn the ruling
essentially?
Ms. Diamond: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Ms. Diamond: You are welcome.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? If not, we will call the meeting
back to order. Councilmember Kuali`i.
The meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kuali`i: I would like to amend as circulated and this
is to address Councilmember Kaneshiro's concerns and I have agreement about
generalizations and those broad statements. And I do not think it detracts from the
overall intent of the Resolution. And along those lines, I do want to point out the
two...the final be it resolved. The "be it resolved" statements, which is really the
strength of the Resolution. So the first "Be It Resolved":
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII, that corporations should not be endowed with the same constitutional
rights as natural persons and because money is not speech, limits on political
spending should be allowed to protect First Amendment rights and ensure a "fair
playing field" in the arena of politics and public decision-making.
The next "Be It Further Resolved":
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the County of Kauai supports
amending the United States Constitution to achieve campaign finance equity
reform by ending the false doctrine of"corporate constitutional rights" in the arena
of elections and voting, and by clarifying that money is property, not speech; and by
allowing limits on campaign contributions and spending.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 16 JUNE 10, 2015
As the original introducer, that is the strength of it. I made a motion to
amend as circulated.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, as
shown in the Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as Attachment 1,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura?
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry that my co-sponsor did not want
to work with me on a compromise, and I am having amendments prepared. I would
like to instead of eliminating the two whereas provisos that Councilmember
Kaneshiro would like to have eliminated. I have amended them to simplify and
make them more accurate. I mean, I have amendments being prepared. And just
so you know what the alternative is, I would amend the whereas about the
Washington Post ABC poll to read...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang-on JoAnn. We have an amendment on
the floor.
Councilmember Yukimura: No...
Council Chair Rapozo: Not no...
Councilmember Yukimura: I know.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have an amendment on the floor. We are
discussing the amendment.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Please discuss the amendment that is on the
floor and not other potential amendments. Let us take a 10-minute recess. You two
can go in the back and discuss your two amendments and come up with one and
that we can all agree upon. We are not going to spend a day on this issue. You two
discuss a compromise amendment and we will move forward. Recess.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 9:54 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:04 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Meeting called back to order and on the floor
now is Councilmember Kuali`i's amendment, removing the 8th paragraph and the
14th paragraph. Any further discussion? Councilmember Yukimura?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Mr. Chair, I think those two
paragraphs put forth very important rationale for this Resolution. And I also think
that Councilmember Kaneshiro made some good points about accurately stating
what the poll found, and also that sometimes we could be simpler in how we state
the facts. So that is why I have an amendment, which I will not discuss, but which
tries to address Councilmember Kaneshiro's concerns without taking out the
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 17 JUNE 10, 2015
essence of two very important concepts supporting the intention of this Resolution.
And therefore, I will not be voting for this amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you, Chair, and I will not be voting for
the amendment either. I think both statements are accurate statement and could
be wordsmith a little bit or perhaps polished or condensed, but they are both
accurate statements. I will read briefly, if I may...this is from the Brennan Justice
Center which did a report on the various polls. And there were four polls done by
different organizations immediately following the original decision or thereabouts.
They all are basically real similar in terms of the results. The Washington Post
ABC poll showed eighty percent (80%) as stated in here. A Common Cause poll
showed only twenty-seven percent (27%) of people agreed with Citizens United. So
again, overwhelming opposition to it. The People for the American Way, which is a
conservative group, seventy percent (70%) or more, seventy-eight percent (78%)
believe that corporations should be limited. There is a Pew Research Center poll
that showed only seventeen percent (17%) of people approved of Citizens United,
the decision. So the various polls are all pretty much consistent; that the vast
amount of Americans oppose Citizens United. So we could list all of the polls, but
this one poll, I think, shows issues of the statement that we are trying to make in
the Resolution, that vast majority of people are opposed to Citizens United. A poll
by its nature is limited. So a thousand people does not mean it is a bad poll and
published by major media Washington Post ABC News and done by experts and I
am sure it is a random sample, et cetera. So at the end of the day, I see no reason to
weaken the Resolution. Both of those statements are accurate statements and I will
be opposing the amendment. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anybody else? Councilmember Chock?
Councilmember Chock: It is interesting how we can all agree upon
one thing, but it is always in the details, where there is more work to be done. I
would support number two whole-heartedly in removing the 14th paragraph because
as someone stated previously. I am less inclined to support the first amendment.
And I am actually interested in hearing what Councilmember Yukimura has to
offer. I know this kind of moves us...we might be here to 4:30 p.m. I do not know.
My hope is that we are not. If you want to support this in seriatim, that is how I
would vote on this at this point. You know, I think that we have got to move
ourselves to finding some way to balance...while we have the experiences that we
have currently, with corporations, you know? I think that we cannot deny that we
need to move towards what it is that we want to and we have to embrace that in
order to address it. That is where I think some of this needs to be retained. With
that, I am happy to take your lead. I just need to hear from everyone where they are
with this. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, I do not want to repeat myself, but to
be clear again, I support the intent of the Resolution one hundred percent (100%).
And is anybody telling me not to support it? No, I am saying that I support it. I
have not had one person tell me not to support it and I actually had people telling
me that I should support it, but based upon reading the whereas statements. The
devil is in the details. That is what I am not comfortable with. I am completely
comfortable with the intent of the Resolution and I one hundred percent (100%)
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 18 JUNE 10, 2015
agree there should be limits on corporate campaign contributions, but to say most
corporations put profit for shareholders ahead of the greatest good of society, I
cannot agree with that. I do not think most corporations do that. That is my own
opinion and other Councilmembers can have other opinions. We do not need to
overgeneralize. Yes, there should be spending limitation, campaign contribution
limits. As far as the poll votes, again to state that eighty percent (80%) of
Americans support it when they only polled one thousand four (1,004) people, we do
not need that. I support it without all of this information, I support it. If anybody
has time to read the House's resolution in 2010 it is very simple. I do not want to go
and read it, because I do not want staff to have to type up the minutes for it, but if
you read that resolution it says the exact same thing as this, but is a lot more
simple with less generalization. My point is the generalization is what is getting
me. I support it one hundred percent (100%), but when we overgeneralize on things
I think we set a bad precedent. That is all I am saying and that is my own personal
opinion. That is why I said I did not want to make this a big deal. It is on a
resolution and I did not want to do an amendment. I was just going to vote no
based on the overgeneralizations, but again, that is where I stand. I am not
comfortable with the Resolution.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So I just wanted to point out that there are
fifteen (15) whereas statements and the other thirteen (13) that remains covers the
ground with the different cases pointed out and with all of the talk about
corporations and the powers and their rights and go against democratically-enacted
law and the whereas above the one we are talking about, the whereas below the
one....There are thirteen (13) whereas statements that remain and I think the
points are made strongly, and as I put on the screen before, the most important part
about it are the two "Be It Resolved" statements. So we can get to the point where
we can have unanimous support for this, that is what is important to me. I heard
someone giving testimony saying it was not important. But as the introducer, it is
important to me. So I am hoping that we can get there. I am just, you know, seeing
this amendment, which removes two of the fifteen (15) whereas statements and
keeps the other thirteen (13) and has us with our strongest statements in the "Be It
Further Resolved" section as a way to get us to that point and to a full Council vote
next week. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So my amendment, which would address
Councilmember Kaneshiro's question with respect to the provision about the poll.
Because it would just accurately state what the poll was. That eighty percent (80%)
of those polled were in favor of it. And so that is not an overgeneralization. It is a
fact. And it is the only proviso in this whole Resolution that speaks about the
extent of support there is out in the public for this Resolution. It is a very
important, I feel, point. That so many people across all political lines feel so
strongly that corporations should not be able to contribute to elections in an
unlimited way. And that really does away with a level-playing field. So that is a
very important provision. It is not overgeneralized now. It addresses
Councilmember Kaneshiro's concern. If my amendment can be passed. And
therefore, I think addresses what he has raised, which I thank him for doing. And I
also have one that would address his other concern about the other provision.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 19 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going to take these ad seriatim and
before we take the vote, let me...do you have another comment, Councilmember
Hooser?
Councilmember Hooser: I have a question for Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Hooser: I am not sure, we are discussing these
amendments in an attempt to alleviate some concerns that he has. And so I guess
my question is, are these the only two concerns that you have? And if one of them
passed and one did not, are we doing all of this in a futile attempt to satisfy?
Council Chair Rapozo: That was my point earlier.
Councilmember Hooser: I mean, I respect your position one hundred
percent (100%), but if you could speak to that maybe.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, those are the only two that I had
problems with. That is why originally I said I am not going to make amendments
and we will just vote on it. But I know we wanted to get...or some Councilmembers
wanted to get a unanimous decision. So they tried to amend it and I can say if those
two are out, I will vote for it unanimously. I guess that is my answer. Unanimous,
if one is in and one is out, I probably will not vote for it. Those are the two that I
am not comfortable with. If they were out, I would vote for it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Sound goods. Let me just make my
comments real quick, because I think we have totally lost the focus of the whole
purpose of the Resolution which was the Supreme Court's decision. And the
Supreme Court said that a corporation is a person. That is ridiculous. I agree with
that. That is insane. You wonder what the heck were they thinking? A corporation
is not a person. The other part of the ridiculous ruling is that money is free speech.
That is ridiculous. Those are the two issues that we are trying to unwind. You
know, and again, KipuKai said, "Do not use the "V" word," the vilify, but I agree
with Councilmember Kaneshiro one hundred percent (100%), when you talk about
"most corporations" because that may or may not be true, because there are many
corporations that spend billions of dollars to make sure that they operate in a green
manner, that they use photovoltaic, and that they use the best type of vehicles.
There are a lot of efforts by corporations throughout the country and not all of them
are bad and when you say "most" it creates this perception that most corporations
are bad. The fact that they have unlimited ability to sway elections is ridiculous
and I agree with that one hundred percent (100%). For the Supreme Court to rule
that they did not contribute to corruption...really, what were they thinking? That
is what it comes down to. A Supreme Court decision that said number one,
corporations are people and number two, money is a form of free speech. That is
what the Resolution seeks to unwind. As far as the amendment with the poll, a
thousand (1,000) people out of three hundred and eighteen million (318,000,000).or
three hundred and twenty million (320,000,000), that is not an effective poll.
Granted we cannot assume that would be the result of any poll we took. But you
know, if we applied that same proportion to a Kaua`i poll, you would have 0.21
people. Not even a quarter of a person. That does not make a valid poll. You know
that. Because you like the result of this poll does not mean that...what if it were
the other way? We would be here saying that poll is no good. You only spoke to a
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 20 JUNE 10, 2015
thousand people. If I went out into Lihu'e town today and spoke to one person and
this number reflects a fourth of a person, less than a fourth, but if I spoke to a
person on any issue that we talk about, would that be reflective of the community's
feelings? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. This issue is a little different because it is
almost as some people have said, it is no-brainer because it makes sense. You
cannot dispute the fact that if I give a politician one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) or two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), and he is not going to
support my issue? Of course they will at that level of government. I think the fact
that limits have been removed that is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I could to go
further and say you need to have term limits in Congress too. They should only
have retirement after they serve ten or twelve years. I will run for Congress on that
platform and see how far I will get. My point is that a lot of problems in our
Federal government as far as how the big boys play and this Resolution seeks to fix
that. We can get to the same result by using accurate and fair information and I
think that is Councilmember Kaneshiro's concern. The fact that paragraph eight
gets removed and paragraph fourteen gets removed does not minimize the impact.
We are not talking about the bad corporations or what they are doing, we are
talking about the ruling by the Supreme Court that we want them to reconsider or
we want a charter amendment or constitutional amendment to fix. Those are the
two issues that the Supreme Court ruled on...the Supreme Court did not rule that
they put profits before the betterment of the community. I think that statement
could be true in some cases and it could be not true in some cases. So I appreciate
and respect Councilmember Kaneshiro's position on this and again, for most of you,
you probably know this, we only heard his position today, first time on the floor. I
am trying to process this, and I apologize for the music coming out of my iPad, but I
am trying to look online to figure out some numbers. So I will support this
Resolution...I mean this amendment, and I definitely will support the Resolution.
Removing these two, in my opinion does not eliminate the validity. I believe it is
important and the unanimous support of the Resolution is viable and it sends a
louder message and I do not think that you compromise the quality of the
Resolution by removing paragraphs eight and fourteen. With that, let us take the
first one please ad seriatim, removing the eighth paragraph.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to take the Floor Amendment, which is
attached hereto as Attachment 1 in seriatim, seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, by deleting the 8th
paragraph (See Attachment 1) was then put and failed by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL— 3,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kagawa TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: It failed. Roll call on the next section.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, by deleting the 14th
paragraph (See Attachment 1) was then put and carried by the following
vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 2,
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 21 JUNE 10, 2015
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kagawa TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: So we are back to the main motion. Were
there any more amendments?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Move to amend as circulated.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1,
as amended, as shown in the Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as
Attachment 2, seconded by Councilmember Hooser.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: So if I may explain my amendments.
Council Chair Rapozo: Please.
Councilmember Yukimura: Staff, can we make sure that people in the
audience have copies? Thank you. I am proposing to amend the paragraph which
Councilmember Kuali`i's amendment failed to delete. The one about corporations
putting profits ahead of the good of society. And it simplifies the paragraph, but
hopefully keeps its essence and it includes some wording that Mr. Kuali`i suggested.
It would read, "Whereas most corporations by their legal obligations often put
profits for shareholders ahead of the good of society" and it takes everything else
out. And then the second part of the amendment would reinsert the poll.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, that amendment
is not valid because the language has changed with the passage of the first
amendment. So we are going to have to re-create the amendment to reflect the
passage. If you could just leave that off and just discuss your first amendment,
number one.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Staff, can we be preparing a new
amendment to reinsert?
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? If not, roll call...I
am sorry. On number one of Councilmember Yukimura's amendment.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, I think it is clear where I am coming
from, in regards to the overgeneralization. We did not change any of the
overgeneralization and it still says most corporations and added by "their legal
obligations" which I do not know if that is true or not. I have never heard of a
company who has it in their documents that says, "You are obligated to put profits
for shareholders ahead of the greater good of society." I have never seen that
before. It is a generalized statement. Individuals could do that too. Individuals
can work and put their greater good above society. I just do not think, again, this
does not even touch upon what the intent of this whole Resolution is for. So that is
why I guess I am sticking true to my argument that this is unnecessary, and I think
it only will push people away from a Resolution like this. If they feel like it has a
negative undertone. I mean, why have it in if it does not add any teeth to this
Resolution? The Resolution is simple and KipuKai said it, basically corporations
are not persons and corporations should not have unlimited political contributions.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 22 JUNE 10, 2015
It does not need any of this and I am going stick to my guns and again, I support
that 100%. In my opinion, these whereas statements generalize and I cannot
support and it that is why I will not support this amendment.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the County
Attorney to come forward on a legal question?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: If there are no objections, I will suspend the
rules. We are really...I think Councilmember Kaneshiro's point is so valid. He is
not comfortable with it, and he votes no. Really, it is just as much...really...
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I am not debating that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, I am calling him
up. I am just not sure he is able to do a legal opinion on the fly. Go ahead and ask
your question.
STEPHEN F. HALL, First Deputy County Attorney: Good morning,
First Deputy County Attorney Stephen Hall.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Steve. I wanted to ask if
corporations have a fiduciary duty to make profits for their corporation, especially if
there is a conflict between achieving some of society's goals and the goal of making
the highest profits. Is there a fiduciary responsibility?
Mr. Hall: There are a number of different types of
corporations. C-corps, S-corps, and limited liability corporations (LLCs), sure their
goal is to make a profit, but we have not-for-profit corporations and it is difficult to
make a blanket statement like that.
Councilmember Yukimura: For the profit corporations, there is a
fiduciary duty.
Mr. Hall: To do their best for their shareholders, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is the County of Kauai a corporation?
Mr. Hall: It is a municipal corporation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is it a corporation?
Mr. Hall: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do we put our profits...do we even have
shareholders?
Mr. Hall: We do not have shareholders, correct.
The meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows:
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 23 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: That is my point. That is what
Councilmember Kaneshiro is trying to say. It is just broad and general, and it is not
necessary. Thank you. We will call the meeting back to order. I belong to...that I
can remember...I have been recently associated with the United Way, Red Cross,
Pop Warner, I was always on the board. We were corporations. That was not true
of our corporation. It does not say for-profit corporations and yet, there are some
for-profit corporations that operate differently. We had the opportunity with the one
amendment to pass this unanimously and we should have went there and now we
are trying...and we are not going to get there. We lost the support. So roll call. I
am sorry.
Councilmember Hooser: What are we voting on?
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura's amendment.
Councilmember Hooser: Number one only?
Council Chair Rapozo: Number two is not valid because it was
already changed in a prior amendment. So she is preparing a new one for that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I think we should have some
chance to discuss.
Council Chair Rapozo: We do, go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: So I think the Chair's examples of
corporations are not relevant to this issue, because the corporations that are
non-profit cannot even make campaign contributions by their charter. And I
appreciate what we are talking about here and I can see that we could become even
more explicit about it, but the corporations that we are talking about here are the
ones that are allowed under Citizens United, unlimited contributions to political
campaigns, and political candidates.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where in your amendment does it specify
that? Your amendment says most corporations by their legal obligations often put
profits for shareholders ahead of the good of society. That is all the paragraph says.
This does not mention a thing about campaign contributions or anything. You are
just making a broad statement that most corporations put profits of shareholders
before the interest or the good of the society. That is what your amendment said
and I think it is broad and general.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes and what I am saying is that we are
talking here in the context of corporations that are the ones that are allowed
unlimited contributions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is in this Resolution.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is your perception and that is fine.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes and I am just saying those are the ones
that we are talking about, so your examples of the non-profits are not relevant.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 24 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: To you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, even to your example of being able to
make contributions. They do not...they cannot make political contributions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, that is to you. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just want to say it is pretty amazing, by
getting buried in the word-for-word detail we can find a way to disagree on the
things that we agree on. In fact, when we talk about compromise, letting go of two
whereas statements out of fifteen (15) and having the fifteen (15)... having the four
"Be It Resolved," it is all there. I do not know why we cannot support this
unanimously and the more I hear Councilmember Kaneshiro repeat his passionate
position, I respect that and I support that. I support the full intent of what we are
trying to do with this Resolution. I do not see how it is changed by compromising to
let go of those two whereas statements. I would imagine that any reasonable
person in the public, who wants to be a part of this movement, Move To Amend,
wethepeopleamendment.org for this and the two basic principles of money is not
speech and corporations are not people with inalienable rights according to the
Constitution, would probably be laughing at us today, that we are doing this over
the phrase, the potential vilifying of corporations in general. It is just not necessary
and if we are going to now end up in a deadlocked position today and have this
buried in Committee, that is just silly. I am not going to support this amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: My focus is on the accuracy of the
statements. And I believe the statement as proposed is an accurate statement and
that is my biggest concern. Is it an accurate statement or not? It is not about
vilifying, but for me it is about accuracy and real briefly, the County Attorney spoke
to it, but I would like to read an excerpt from the New York Times. It said, the
leading statement of the law...views on corporate social responsibilities goes to a
Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company a 1919 decision that held that a business
corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of stockholders. This
was a case where Henry Ford tried to reduce the price of cars and was told that by
the shareholders that he could not do that; that he was violating the corporate
charter because he was cutting into their profit and the court ruled that he could
not. There was another example eBav Domestic Holdings vs. Newmark, held that
corporate directors are bound by fiduciary duties and standards to promote the
value of the corporation for the benefit of the stockholders. That does come first.
That is what the courts have ruled, that corporations have to put the profits of
stockholders above other things; that do not affect that. So it is an accurate
statement. I do not know if it is necessary to the amendment, but I will be voting in
support of it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, I stated my case, I do not know how
many times. I just want to say, I lost my train of thought already.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think you made it enough times already.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am trying to make it clear, I am not being
influenced by anybody, but I am just trying to strengthen the Resolution. At the
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 25 JUNE 10, 2015
table we have seven (7) people and I am saying that I am not comfortable with this.
If you want to poll us now, our poll is going to be very weird. I am saying that
maybe there are people out there that would support it also, the Resolution, if you
got rid of it, but I am just trying to say, if you keep the Resolution to the point, you
do not add in a lot of whereas statements, that are maybe overgeneralizing, we will
get more support for the Resolution. That is all I am trying to do and trying to get
comfortable supporting it and I said I would support it without those two in it. I am
ready to vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. I was supportive of the original
whereas. It is hard, because I am supportive of this amendment as well. But I
think it is hard, because we do not know what we are working with until we see it.
And so when the amendments come forward, you want to be able to give some
credence and at least some understanding to what it is that people are presenting to
you. I will support this amendment and it is unfortunate that we did not get
unanimous support for it. But hey, if there was a way that Councilmember...if there
was a way to say that I one hundred percent (100%) support it without these two
whereas statements, I am sure that Councilmember Kaneshiro would vote aye on it,
but that is not the case. Let us move forward. I am ready to vote on it.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am, too. I have been very flexible with the
two times that Councilmembers can speak because it is the last item on the agenda.
We had an opportunity to pass this Resolution 7-0 and now we are probably going to
end up in a 6-1 vote. Anyway, roll call.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, as amended, by
amending the 8th paragraph as shown in the Floor Amendment which is
attached hereto as Attachment 2 was then put, and failed by the following
vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kagawa TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion fails. So the original language
will stay. If there are no objections, I am going to suspend the rules. No, we are not
going to allow anymore. You had two opportunities to speak, but Ms. Parker did not
and I will ask Ms. Parker to come up and testify.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ALICE PARKER: Good morning and thank you. I am in
total support of recreating public donations, personal donations for campaign
spending, and along with the majority of our countrymen, we do not want
candidates bought from big companies' money. And I do not see why campaigns
have to be so exorbitantly expensive. But I am in support and not all corporations
are bad. Some are abysmal. Thank you.
The meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows:
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 26 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. We will call the
meeting back to order. We have the main motion on the floor, the main motion is
the Resolution as was originally put on the floor, minus paragraph 14. So the poll
line, the poll paragraph is out. Paragraph 8 as originally moved on to the floor is
still in there. So we are at a dilemma, because we only have six (6) members today.
So as you know, 3-3 will keep it deferred in the Committee for another two (2)
weeks. So there is a strategy and we can have it deferred until two (2) weeks when
Councilmember Kagawa is back and hope he can convince somebody to change their
vote or massage this amendment, so we can get it done, or we could pass it out
today and get it to the full Council. Based on what we saw today, I do not want this
at the full Council with amendments. I am not sure why it is taking so long, but it
is. So I just wanted to put that out there. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would suggest that we call the vote and
vote today and move on. That would be my suggestion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to say that I am disappointed
that we are not coming to agreement and being able to compromise. It has affected
me so much that I am...I would much rather see us defer this, and work on it more
in two weeks. Hopefully with Councilmember Kagawa here, and maybe we can still
try to get to the point of unanimous support. It is that important to me. I am kind
of dumbfounded that we are at this place right now, and that for me, it is not
necessarily about the accuracy of each of these whereas statements, because we
could probably add another fifteen (15) and have thirty (30) whereas statements
that were accurate. It is more about what is necessary, you know? And what is
agreeable to get us to the point of unanimous support. And that it still makes the
point of encouraging our citizens to be a part of this national movement to act in
their best interests. Maybe in Committee in two (2) weeks, we will just have a little
bit more time to even provide more outreach and education to citizens. But I do not
know, it is just a weird position to be in right now as the original introducer of this
Resolution, which I know we all agree on. I am just kind of not understanding why
we cannot make this one elimination of one of the fifteen (15) whereas statements to
get us to the point of unanimous support.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am not going to support this today.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I think there has been a lot of
effort to compromise and, in fact, I think the one place where some people are not
willing to compromise is to not have...that people are not willing to not have a
unanimous decision. We could all pass it out, and have this thing pass as approved
by the Council without a unanimous decision. So that is sort of where the
unwillingness to compromise seems to be landing. So I am thinking that we have
had enough discussion. If we can get Council approval of this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Chock?
Councilmember Chock: I wanted to move forward, and I am kind of
surprised that we are where we are. So I am in my seat thinking hey, bring it back
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 27 JUNE 10, 2015
and see where we can get with that, but if we do that, it still has people not
supportive of it. One way or another, I feel like I could be the one to break the tie
here, but you are not going to get the support in the end anyway. So I say we just
vote on it and see where it lands. It is the best we can do right now.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am ready to vote. I was not going to propose
an amendment. I think I made it clear that I am in support of this Resolution one
hundred percent (100%). But I made it clear where I am not comfortable, and
again, I think it may turn other people off, too, having that in there. If it is turning
me off, it may turn other people off. When you look at a resolution like that, I do not
think this Resolution is about corporate profits. It is about a company not being a
person and it is about unlimited corporate contributions. And that is what it is
about. And that is what I would like to keep the Resolution to. I am just not
comfortable with it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Well, you know, politics is the
art of compromise. That is what it is. You know, I had hoped that the two
introducers could come to an agreement as to what...I believe on the Resolution, the
best way to be is the 7:0. It is not necessary, but I think for any resolution,
especially of this magnitude, because granted it is only a resolution. But yet,
coming from a body of a Council that is unanimously in support, I think it gives a
little more "oomph" and a little more consideration, I guess, if will you. I do not
think that Councilmember Kuali`.i's initial...and I already said this, but I will say it
again...the original amendment to remove the two paragraphs caused any type of
impact on the power of the message. I think, again, I have already spoken on what
the true reason we are here has nothing to do with corporations and how they are
run and how they operate and their charters look like. It comes down to the ruling
that I believe the Supreme Court erroneously ruled on and that is what we need to
fix. Matt Bernabe talked about the symptom and the fact of the matter, the
problem is that they are given the authority by the Supreme Court. Because the
Supreme Court...the issue is not the fact that they can give the money, but the fact
that the Supreme Court ruled that they can because corporations are people. That
is the problem. That is what this Resolution set out to fix. I do not think anybody
in this room and if you polled the people on the island you would get a high
percentage of people that agree against...agree that the Supreme Court made a bad
ruling. I think that goes without saying. So do we need to insert the paragraphs
that make one Councilmember uncomfortable? I respect everyone's opinion, but I
believe we need to have a 7:0 vote and Councilmember Kuali`i has to vote against
his own Resolution so that we can get a shot to get a 7:0 vote. I do not know if we
can, but I am willing to take the chance to wait until Councilmember Kagawa comes
back to get the necessary votes to remove that paragraph, that will make
Councilmember Kaneshiro vote on it. I cannot believe we spent this much time on
this, but I definitely empathize and respect Councilmember Kaneshiro's position. I
also believe if we take the extra two (2) weeks we will end up with a 7:0 vote, I
believe that. And I think that is more important than our lack of ability to
compromise today and end up with a 5:1 vote. I am going to be voting against it to
get it to Committee in two (2) weeks to get the 7:0 vote.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why do we not just move to defer?
Councilmember Hooser: A majority of the Members said they wanted
to vote.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 28 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: I am trying to do what you guys want,
JoAnn.
Councilmember Hooser: Four Members said they wanted to vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the hardest thing, it is almost like
the weather, it is sunny and then it rains and I am trying to do what you want and I
said earlier to defer it strategically or vote. You folks said let us vote on it, let us
vote on it, let us vote on it and now you say let us defer it. You have the prerogative
to do what you want. You make the motion to defer. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I will speak for myself. I think we should
vote on the Resolution. I think we have had the discussion. We have already
compromised halfway with the Member who had some concerns. So we have
compromised. And we have had a full and robust discussion. We talked to the
attorneys. We spent a lot of time on this. I would encourage everyone...I do not
want to see it get any weaker, myself. We might have a 7:0 vote. If this moves
much further in the direction that some might want it to go, I might not support it.
Again, we have compromised already. We have met Councilmember Kaneshiro
halfway on his concerns and we had a discussion. Let us vote. I think the right
thing to do would be to vote on it today.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I withdraw my motion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Which motion?
Councilmember Kuali`i: The original motion. I am going to make a
motion to defer.
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion to defer trumps it. That is fine.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I move to defer.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion before we take the
motion to defer? Because there is no discussion after a motion to defer.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Just a quick discussion on compromising.
Am I one hundred percent (100%) in agreement with the Resolution? No, but those
were the two I was comfortable getting out and I would go with it. If I put out the
Resolution, I would have copied the House resolution from 2010. It is a solid, very
short, very to the point resolution. But you know, I think I was compromising by
just saying I do not like all of these whereas statements, but if you get rid of these
two, fine. The intent is what the intent is and that is why it is so hard to be arguing
here when I want to vote for the intent, but the devil is in details. We have spent
hours arguing on something about corporate profits which has nothing do with
intent of this Resolution. So I am ready to vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are ready to vote? Okay, fifteen (15)
whereas statements, I think two (2)...it sounds like Councilmember Kaneshiro has
problems with more than two (2), but two (2) was the threshold to get his support
and I think we should have taken the opportunity to gain that, but we did not. So
with that the motion on the floor is to approve.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I move to defer.
COW COMMITTEE MEETING 29 JUNE 10, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there a second?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Second.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to defer Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, as
amended to Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 2, to the June 24, 2015 Committee
of the Whole Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR DEFERRAL: Chock, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST DEFERRAL: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kagawa TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Four (4) ayes. That motion is passed and we
will see this on the agenda in two (2) weeks. With that, today's business is
concluded. The meetings are adjourned.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
a Nib. /
Codie K. Yamauc i
Council Services Assistant
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on June 24, 2015:
MHAAjA POZ O
Chair, Committee of the Whole
ATTACHMENT 1
June 10, 2015
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, Relating To Urging Hawai`i's Congressional
Delegation To Address Excessive Campaign Spending By Proposing And Passing
Amendments Clarifying That Corporations Are Not People With Constitutional
Rights, In Particular Electoral Rights, And That Unlimited Campaign Spending Is
Not Free Speech
Introduced by: KipuKai Kuali`i
1) Amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, by deleting the 8th paragraph
as follows:
"[WHEREAS, most corporations put profits for shareholders ahead of
the greatest good of society while individuals as natural persons have more
freedom to balance self-interest and the broader public interest (or to see that
their self-interest is intertwined with the broader public interest) when
making political decisions; and]"
2) Am6nd Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, by deleting the 14th paragraph
as follows:
"[WHEREAS, a February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found
that eighty percent (80%) of Americans oppose the U.S. Supreme Court
Citizens United ruling; and]"
(Material to be deleted is bracketed.)
ATTACHMENT 2
June 10, 2015
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, Relating To Urging Hawai`i's Congressional
Delegation To Address Excessive Campaign Spending By Proposing And Passing
Amendments Clarifying That Corporations Are Not People With Constitutional
Rights, In Particular Electoral Rights, And That Unlimited Campaign Spending Is
Not Free Speech
Introduced by: JoAnn A. Yukimura
1) Amend Resolution No. 2015-44, Draft 1, by amending the 8th paragraph to
read as follows:
"WHEREAS, most corporations by their legal obligations often put
profits for shareholders ahead of the [greatest] good of society; [society while
individuals as natural persons have more freedom to balance self-interest
and the broader public interest (or to see that their self-interest is
intertwined with the broader public interest) when making political
decisions;] and"
•
0