Campaign Spending Commission

Campaign Spending Commission Meeting
Zoom Video Conference
November 12, 2025
10:00 a.m.

Commissioners Present
David Chee, Danton Wong, Jon Itomura, Barbara Polk

Commissioner Excused
Neal Herbert

Staff Present
Kristin E. Izumi-Nitao, Tony Baldomero, Kristie Chang, Terence Lau, Anthony Diep

Deputy Attorney General
Candace Park

Guest(s)
Chad Blair, Hawaii Public Radio – Emma Caires, Joell Edwards

Call to Order
Chair Chee called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m.

Chair Chee went over the procedures for the remote meeting via Zoom and introduced the Commissioners and Commission staff who were present.  He stated that Vice-Chair Herbert was excused from today’s meeting.  The Commissioners present stated that there was no one else with them.

Consideration and Approval of Minutes of Meeting on 10/8/25
Commissioner Polk moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 10/8/25.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (4-0).

New Business
*Report on the Commission’s 2025 Annual Online Survey – Associate Director Baldomero reported on the results of the Commission’s 2025 Annual Online Survey.  He stated that the purpose of the survey is to help evaluate the effectiveness of Commission operations and communications for fiscal year 2025 (i.e., July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025) as well as provide the Commission with any feedback in areas that we administer and regulate for improvement in fiscal year 2026 and beyond.  He made the following remarks:

• This was the 14th year of the survey.
• The survey was launched on 10/8/25 via the CSC website, E-Blast, Facebook & X, and closed on 11/4/25.
• Total outreach via E-Blast was 1,066 made up of 430 candidate committees, 259 noncandidate committees and 377 public subscribers. CSC’s Facebook and X pages are in the public domain and at the time of the survey launch there were 313 Facebook and 1,094 X followers.  There were also 52,000 visitors to the CSC website during the time the survey was open and available on the website.
• The survey ran for a total of 28 days which is below the 14-year average of 34 days.  The longest that the survey ran was for 51 days in 2017 resulting in 125 responses.
• There were 84 total responses which ranks at #12 for the 14 years that the Commission has been conducting the survey compared to the 14-year average of 116 responses (144 responses were received in 2020 (COVID year) which was the highest ever received with the second highest number of responses occurring in 2016 with 140). 73 or 87% of the 84 responders completed the survey to the end.
• 5 minutes and 8 seconds was the typical time spent completing the survey with the CSC estimating it was going to take 5-10 minutes.
• E-Blasts were sent on 10/8/25, 10/15/25, 10/22/25, 10/29/25, and 11/3/25, and Facebook and X posts were done on the same dates. The CSC website post remained on the website for the entire 28-day duration of the survey.
• The survey comprised of 6 sections and 28 survey questions (27 multiple-choice, 1 open-ended)

Associate Director Baldomero went through each of the 6 sections of the survey:

1 – Background Information Highlights (5 Questions/84 Responses) (Percentages calculated based on the number of answers to a specific question)

• Responders were mostly candidates (25) then treasurers (or deputy treasurers) of a noncandidate committee (15) and members of the public (14) who reside on the islands of Oahu (51), Hawaii (15), and Maui (10). There were also 12 responses from treasurers (or deputy treasurers) of a candidate committee.  The responders have a wide-range of experience among the 6 ranges with most falling in the 5-10 years (21), then the 10-20 years (19) and 1-3 years (18) ranges.  Overall, this a diverse group of experienced people (5 or more years-50 people) that can provide a broad perspective of our work as well as a newer group (less than 1 year to 5 years-34 people) that can provide us with a fresh perspective.
• 68 or 81% filed CSC reports electronically, 50 or 60% made a contribution or a loan to a candidate, 49 or 58% have been involved in campaign activities, and 27 or 32% searched or conducted research and/or reported on Commission data, so this was an engaged group that was quite familiar with the world of campaigning and campaign finance.
• 49 or 58% responded that this was their first time taking the survey with 27 or 32% responding that they took the survey between 2-5 times so it seems that this is a group that will offer us a fresh look at what we do. Only 3 or 4% took the survey between 6-10 times and 5 or 6% took it 10-13 times.

2 – Communication/Access Highlights (8 Questions/80 Responses) (Percentages calculated based on the number of answers to a specific question)

• 70 or 88% of responders in this category responded that the Commission’s website was the #1 source for obtaining information from the Commission followed by phone calls or drop-in visits to the Commission’s office (54 or 68%), Guidebooks and Manuals (50 or 63%), and then Email (44 or 55%).
• Social-media engagement is still lacking with only 7 or 9% following us on X, 4 or 5% following us on Facebook, and 8 or 10% just viewing our X posts on the CSC website, compared to 66 or 83% who are not.  Despite that, 56 or 70% were email subscribers who received E-Blasts (i.e., so most of the responders came from our E-Blast outreach and the CSC website versus Facebook and X posts).
• Electronically filing disclosure reports (57 or 71%) and viewing candidate committee reports (41 or 51%), followed by viewing committee reporting schedules (38 or 48%) and electronically filing forms (35 or 44%), drove people to the CSC website. Overall, it seems that responders are visiting our website to electronically file reports and to view candidate committee reports as well as to find out when reports are due.
• Of the 45 or 56% who said that they use the searchable database, all 45 said it was a helpful tool that was mainly used to search contributor names and how much money they gave to candidates (41 or 93%) and how candidates spent/expended their campaign funds (30 or 68%).
• The candidate and noncandidate committee data visualization apps were not as popular as the searchable database with 22 or 28% who said they had used it and 58 or 73% saying they had not.

3 – Education/Training Highlights (2 Questions/80 Responses) (Percentages calculated based on the number of answers to a specific question)

• For those who attended training, most of them said that it had been more than 3 years ago (22 or 28%), with those who attended last year (8 or 10%) or 1-3 years (8 or 10%) since they last attended an in-person or remote (zoom) training. 36 or 45% have never attended in-person or remote (zoom) training before.
• 42 or 53% have viewed the Candidate Committee Guidebook, 38 or 48% viewed the Candidate Filing System Manual, and 29 or 36% viewed the Treasurer’s Guidebook, and so it seems that this was the preferable way of obtaining information on the requirements.

4 – Compliance and Enforcement Highlights (5 Questions/78 Responses) (Percentages calculated based on the number of answers to a specific question)

• 38 or 49% of responders in this category said they file their disclosure reports on time and 28 or 36% said they have not with all 28 of those saying they only filed late 1-2 times.
• 38 or 49% of responders said they were fined 1-2 times with 3 or 4% saying they were fined 3-4 times. 26 or 33% said they were never fined.
• 16 or 21% have entered into a Conciliation Agreement with the Commission but 46 or 59% have never entered into a Conciliation Agreement with the Commission.
• 57 or 73% have never had a complaint filed against them with 7 or 9% saying they had a complaint brought before the Commission against them.

5 – Public Funding Highlights (3 Questions/76 Responses) (Percentages calculated based on the number of answers to a specific question)

• Only a small number of responders in this category (11 or 14%) have qualified for and received public funding versus 40 or 53% who have not. Of the 11 receiving public funds, 8 or 32% received the maximum amount.
• 57 or 75% support public funding versus 19 or 25% who do not.

6 – Other Highlights (5 Questions/73 Responses) (Percentages calculated based on the number of answers to a specific question)

• 50 or 69% of responders in this category said they would support a general fund appropriation to see public funding continue versus 23 or 32% who said they would not. 33 or 45% have been checking off the $3 tax check-off versus 40 or 55% who have not.
• 64 or 88% knew that the $3 check-off did not affect their tax liability or decrease their refund versus 9 or 12% who did not. It seems that the responders are aware that checking off the box does not affect their tax liability or decrease their refund, but they are still not checking the box.
• 50 or 69% responded that Super PACs were a concern versus 23 or 32% who said they were not a concern. This high percentage of concern is typical in an election year when there is an increase in Super PAC spending.

7 – Comments (20 Responses)

• Many positive comments acknowledging staff’s great work (especially Anthony and Terrence), and the helpful resources we provide to our filers and the public.
• These are the most constructive comments for improvement: 1) Other revenue streams should be sought for public funding; 2) More public funding and no SuperPACs; 3) Post fundraiser notices on other social media sites like Instagram and Facebook; 4) More transparency around campaign donations and legislative action; and, 5) More funding, and more staff and resources.

Associate Director Baldomero summarized on some important findings resulted from the survey.

1. There is a strong desire for more funding and staffing for the Commission.
2. Users are highly satisfied with the service of the staff but would like to have an easier to use system.
3. There is a demand for more transparency especially around contributions and the Commission’s role in legislation.
4. The public’s concern for super PACs. There are currently about 20 registered super PACs and about 3 are currently active.
5. There is strong support for public funding and the desire to expand it.
6. Request for broader social media use from the Commission.
7. Many committees do not use the dashboard but those that do found it very helpful.
8. Positive feedback on the Commission’s customer service and professionalism.
9. There is an interest in additional enforcement and follow up on complaints.
10. There is a desire for continuous education and better user-support tools.

Commissioner Wong asked for clarification regarding the demand for more social media usage.  Associate Director Baldomero responded that one of the questions asked on the survey is about whether the responder uses the Commission’s social media, which most responded that they do not.  He recommended that perhaps staff needs to publicize it more but cautioned that there is no dedicated staff to engage with the public.  The Commission’s social media is used more as one-way channels to post information such as fundraiser notices.

Commissioner Wong asked for an explanation on fundraiser notices.  Associate Director Baldomero stated that committees are required to file fundraiser notices with the Commission, and staff will post it on the Commission’s website as well as its X account, so it appears that there is a demand to have these posted on more social media platforms.  Commissioner Itomura commented that the result is contradictory because many also responded that they do not engage with the Commission’s social media, but yet there are also demand for increased social media posts.

Chair Chee asked for clarification regarding the interest for additional enforcement.  Associate Director Baldomero responded that a section of the survey is on compliance and enforcement, and the results indicated that these committees are aware of their compliance status and the Commission’s enforcement can be a way for them to learn from their mistakes.

Commissioner Wong asked if the survey is anonymous and if staff can see a correlation between responders who said that they have been fined and negative responses about the Commission.  Associate Director Baldomero responded that he did not see many negative comments.

Commissioner Wong also wanted to know if there is anything specific regarding the public’s desire for more funding for the Commission.  Associate Director Baldomero responded that most of the demand was specific to public funding and the comments regarding additional funding for staff resources were unclear, but he speculated that given the work that the Commission does, when the public sees that it is only a 5 member agency, it would be natural for them to desire a bigger agency to look into some of the cases that are reported by the media.

Chair Chee commended staff – especially Administrative Assistant Anthony Diep and Elections Assistant Terence Lau for the high level of satisfaction expressed by the comments.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the survey results will be posted on the Commission’s website.

*Presentation, Discussion, and Overview of the Upcoming 2026 Election in the State of Hawaii, City and County of Honolulu, County of Hawaii, County of Maui, and County of Kauai – Associate Director Baldomero presented an overview of the 2026 election (e.g., timeline, offices up for election, projections, etc.).

• Election dates:
  • Primary – August 8^th
  • General – November 3^rd
• 103 seats out of 128 seats are up for election (there were also 103 seats in the 2024 election)
• Observations on the offices up for election:
  • Governor Green has $1.6 million in campaign fund as of June 30^th
  • Lieutenant Governor Luke has $600,000 in campaign fund as of June 30^th.
  • Senate – 14 seats up for election (1 open seat)
  • House – 51 seats up for election (2 open seats)
  • Honolulu City Council – 4 seats up for election
  • Hawaii County Council – 9 seats up for election (3 open seats)
  • Maui Mayor – Mayor Bissen will run for a second term
  • Maui County Council – 9 seats up for election
  • Kauai Mayor – open seat
  • Kauai County Council – 7 seats up for election (4 open seats)
  • OHA – 5 seats up for election
• Nomination paper filing dates
  • Begins on February 2^nd
  • Ends on June 2^nd
• Current registered candidate committees – 432
• Current registered noncandidate committees – 259
• Political parties – 3 with 1 pending

Associate Director Baldomero also provided an overview of the 2026 election reporting schedule.

• There are 5 tracks: Determined by when nomination papers are filed, the office being sought, and the number of opponents for that office.
  • Candidates not running in the 2026 election – 2 reports
  • $1,000 or less candidates – 1 report
  • Candidates who file nomination papers from February 2^nd through February 23^rd (Primary ballot only)
    • 7 regular reports
    • 1 special report (only if received late contributions)
  • Candidates who file nomination papers from February 2^nd through February 23^rd (General ballot only)
    • 4 regular reports
    • 1 special report (only if received late contributions)
  • Candidates who file nomination papers from February 2^nd through February 23^rd (Primary and General ballot)
    • 8 regular reports
    • 2 special reports (only if received late contributions)
  • Deadline compliance if committees fail to file their report(s), they will receive:
    1. Notice of late report;
    2. Fine notice for late report (if filed late); and
    3. Complaint (if report is not filed or fine is not paid).
  • Public funding applications
    • Must have filed nomination papers to apply so February 2^nd is the first day to apply
    • 2024 was a record low year of only about $52,000 given out as public funds to 10 candidates with 7 of them winning.

Old Business
*Consideration, Discussion, Approval, and/or Update of Commission Legislation and Other Related Bills/Resolutions for the 2026 Legislative Session – General Counsel Chang updated the Commission on the bills approved at the 10/8/25 meeting after having met with various stakeholders.  She stated that the Commission’s bills were well-received; but generated some discussions which she would like to present for possible amendments for their consideration.  She further stated that any amendments would need to be approved by the December meeting as the deadline to submit the bills is December 26, 2025.

With regard to CSC-01 (Relating to Partial Public Financing of Elections), she stated that concerns were raised on whether the Commission’s trust fund ($2.4 million) was enough to cover public funding.  It was explained that it would not be enough by staff’s calculations, which is the reason why the bill includes a request for an additional $2.4 million.  It was also brought to staff’s attention that any appropriation request should be effective at the beginning of a fiscal year.  Therefore, General Counsel Chang suggested that the Commission’s bill be amended to adjust for the funding appropriation date to be on July 1, 2026, and the remainder of the bill would be effective November 4, 2026.

With regard to CSC-03 (Relating to Campaign Contributions), the following areas require the Commission’s input and decision-making:

1. Possible definitions of Officers

A. Defined as an individual who is listed as an officer on the department of commerce and consumer affairs business registration database; or
B. “Officer” means an individual of the person subject to the provisions of sub-sections (a), (b) of (c) above who is (i) the owner of a sole proprietorship, (ii) a general partner in the case of a general, limited or limited liability partnership, (iii) manager or co-manager in the case of a limited liability company, or (iv) an officer in the case of a corporation or any of the entities described in sub-sub-sections (ii) or (iii). This definition was suggested by Commissioner Wong.

2. Branches of Government – Despite the Commission having voted at its last meeting to not have this bill be limited to the issuing branch of government, this matter was raised again by stakeholders.

3. Ballot Issue Committee – Consideration of whether this bill should include the solicitation and acceptance of contributions by any person to any noncandidate committee to influence ballot issues.

4. Penalty for Violation – Consideration of a penalty of a percentage of the contract or grant amount and/or to prohibit the contractor (including as a subcontractor) from bidding or a grantee from applying for a grant or sub-grant for a number of years from the time a violation is determined.

5. Password-Protected Website – After further analysis, staff has concerns about the responsibility of obtaining the names of officers and their immediate family as well as concerns about implementing the password-protected requirements added to HB371 by the effective date of the bill. Therefore, staff is recommending having this section as well as the request for funding to build this system be removed from the bill.

With regard to CSC-06 (Relating to Campaign Spending Commission’s Electronic Filing System Modernization), a concern was raised regarding the bill’s title.  Because the purpose of this bill is to conform the language to be consistent with the new filing system, removing the word “modernization” from the title as well as in the description may be appropriate to eliminate any confusion.  However, the contents of the bill would remain as it was approved by the Commission at the last meeting.

Chair Chee stated that he wanted to have further discussion on the topics presented by General Counsel Chang regarding CSC-03, asked if there will be multiple pay-to-play bills introduced this session, and whether lawmakers are expected to pull elements from various bills and combine them into a final version. Which could mean that the Commission’s bill might not be the one that advances, but key parts could be adopted into another bill.  General Counsel Chang responded that she is expecting to see similar bills being introduced and heard at the same time as the Commission’s bills.

Chair Chee stated that the importance of today’s discussion is to help staff align on the direction they want to take regarding proposed bills.  Since the Commission will not meet frequently enough to weigh in on every change, the goal is to establish a general consensus to guide staff in understanding the Commission’s preferences when evaluating or responding to suggested changes.  Even if specific issues are not discussed today, the broader conversation should provide enough guidance to reflect the Commission’s intentions.

With regard to CSC-03, Chair Chee suggested discussing the two definitions of “officer”.  He stated that he prefers definition “B” because it addresses the controlling entity that can make contribution decisions.

Commissioner Itomura was concerned that there could be organizations that list officer roles like president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary without clearly defining who qualifies as an officer.  These individuals could claim that they did not realize they were officers.  Also, he stated that there are situations where the board of directors makes decisions, but directs officers like the president to carry them out.

Chair Chee asked if corporate laws provide a definition of an “officer” that could be adopted so that it applies to even those with unconventional titles but perform the same executive functions as a traditional corporate officer.

General Counsel Chang said that she will look into Chair Chee’s question and added that during stakeholder meetings, staff met with a representative from the Hawaiʻi Association of Nonprofit Organizations (HAPA).  That representative was going to look into the matter, but has not yet responded as they still need to hold internal discussions and consult with their board.  She stated that it is possible that a definition may not be provided.

Commissioner Polk commented that the controlling entity is not as defined in some smaller organizations that collectively make decisions as a board.  Commissioner Itomura agreed and cited the Okinawa association as having 50+ members that make decisions as a board.

Discussion ensued on whether the board of an organization should be included as “officer” or just those with the authority to implement decisions.

Commissioner Wong stated that definition “B” of “officer” was written more in the context of how, generally speaking, boards of directors are meant to set policy.  For example, they may be authorized to approve donations for a cause, but directing specific actions is typically outside their usual scope.  This definition was meant to capture the role of individuals who are actually involved and have the authority to carry out those actions.

Chair Chee asked the Commissioners on their opinion of definition “B” for “officer” in terms of trying to capture individuals with decision-making authority.

Commissioner Itomura did not oppose definition “B” but was concerned that the Commission would receive a lot of inquiries to clarify on roles that are not as clearly defined in this definition.

Commissioner Wong and Commissioner Polk agreed that this would be a good starting point with the expectation that it would be amended during legislative session.

With the Commissioners being in agreement of the definition “B” of “officer”, Chair Chee asked General Counsel Chang to initiate the discussion regarding the limitation of the branches of government in CSC-03.

General Counsel Chang stated that the Commission discussed this topic at the last meeting, but it came up again during staff’s recent stakeholder meetings.  The bill as it was approved by the Commission does not limit the scope to specific branches of government.  If the Commission is inclined to include branches of government in the scope, staff is suggesting to consider defining them as they are outlined in the Constitution to provide clearer guidance as to what is meant by “branches of government.”

Chair Chee commented that he recalled the Commission decided to omit the limitation of government of branches to avoid anyone from trying to circumvent the intention of the bill and asked if the other Commissioners agreed.

Commissioner Polk said that she still feels that prohibiting individuals who are receiving grants from a certain county from contributing to any political candidate or office in the state is too broad.  She understands that candidates move between offices and that there is interaction amongst various levels of government, but applying this kind of restriction seems like a violation of people’s civil rights.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that with respect to grants, staff has been informed that this is overseen by the Office of Community Services in the legislative branch.  If the “branches of government” framework is applied, it would mean that no legislative candidate or candidate committee could receive a contribution from a grantee and their officers or immediate family members, during the life of the grant since the legislature oversees the Office of Community Services.  As an alternative, a “state versus county” framework that categorize contractors and grantees based on whether a state or county issued the contract or grant may be an alternative way of applying this concern.

Chair Chee stated that he also understands Commissioner Polk’s concern; however, he believes that the core concern for the Commission is preventing situations where individuals or entities could effectively influence a contract or grant and emphasized that while the exact language of the bill is still undecided, the shared goal should be to prevent donations from officers that could lead to favorable outcomes for themselves.  He asked if the Commission would agree to the bill without adding the branches of government provision for now with the strong possibility that it would likely be added during legislative session.

The Commissioners were in agreement, but Commissioner Wong suggested changing the monetary threshold to determine which grants would trigger the contribution ban from $100,000 or more to more than $100,000.  The Commission were also in agreement with this change.

Chair Chee then shifted the discussion to the next topic in relating to whether an exception was needed in CSC-03 to exclude the solicitation and acceptance of contributions to ballot issue committees.  He cited the ballot issue initiative to construct the rail system as a consideration for ballot issue committees to be applied the same way as other committees.  He believes that many ballot initiatives do have financial implications similar to the rail project.  He then asked for the Commissioners’ opinion on this topic.

Commissioner Wong asked staff about what the Commission’s role is in regulating ballot initiatives.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that ballot issue committees are unique from the candidate and noncandidate committees as they only exist to support or oppose a ballot measure that has been certified for voting on the ballot.  Ballot issue committees can raise unlimited funds and must terminate once the ballot measure has been decided.  If this exception is added in CSC-03, then contractors, grantees, their officers and immediate family would be allowed to make contributions to ballot issue committees.  She added that staff does not recommend adding the exception but would like to know where the Commission stands on this in case it comes up in another bill.

Commissioner Polk said she needed more time to think about this topic, and the other Commissioners agreed as well.  Chair Chee suggested resuming this discussion at the Commission’s December meeting.

With respect to adding penalties for noncompliance or violations of CSC-03, Chair Chee noted that there is currently no mention of penalties in this bill and asked staff if they anticipate that there will be relating bills introduced with language on penalties.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that she suspected that there would be other bills covering the penalty aspects.  She added that staff does not recommend including penalties to this bill as it can be complicated since contract and grant amounts are not in the Commission’s law, and therefore, would be difficult for the Commission to enforce, especially if it has to do with a penalty to ban the noncompliant corporations from bidding on future contracts.

Chair Chee also raised the concern that it can be difficult to determine the correct entity to penalize as it involves many different parties that may try to sabotage each other by violating the law.

Commissioner Itomura mentioned that CSC-03 does currently have a penalty in the form of the prohibited contribution being escheated to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund if not returned within thirty days, but just not additional penalty to the contributor.

With respect to the suggested amendment to eliminate the password-protected area on the Commission’s website to store the names of officers and their immediate family and the funding to build this area, Commissioner Polk asked staff how this law would be enforced.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the purpose of the password-protected website was to provide notice to candidates helping them avoid accepting contributions from individuals who would be prohibited from making contributions.  However, the recommendation now is to remove this requirement.  Based on further review, staff is concerned that it would have to be responsible for collecting and obtaining this information.  She stated that there are too many state and county contracting agencies for the small number of Commission staff to explain, educate, inform, etc. of this requirement.

She commented that she anticipates that if the password-protected site is inserted later, she recommended that the procurement and grant statutes be referenced and inserted so that the responsibility does not fall solely on the Commission.

Commissioner Wong asked staff who would track the grants and contracts if the password-protected site is removed from the bill.

General Counsel Chang stated that it would have to be the procuring or grantor entities.  She stated that if this remained in the bill, it would appear that the Commission would be responsible to follow up and educate officers involved in contracts or grants to help them understand their compliance obligations.

She added that instead of the Commission touching on other department’s statutes, it should be the legislature that mandates compliance across all relevant agencies so that the responsibility for reporting requirement would lie with those agencies, not with the Commission.  If this requirement is inserted during the legislative process, staff can provide their concerns in testimony, emphasizing that the responsibility for accurate and timely reporting should rest with the originating agencies.  The Commission’s role would simply be to hold and make the data available and not to verify or chase down its accuracy and compliance.

Commissioner Wong wanted to know how staff is planning to enforce CSC-03 without the password-protected website.

General Counsel Chang responded that it would be enforced in the same manner as how the contractor ban is currently being enforced which will depend on complaints made to us.  CSC-03 is essentially an expansion of the contractor ban to include grantees, and contractor’s and grantee’s officers and their immediate family members.

Chair Chee suggested that the password-protected system should not stay in the bill if staff would not be able to implement.  The other Commissioners were in agreement.

Commissioner Itomura moved to approve the following proposed amendments for CSC-03:

• Amend the definition of “officer” to mean an individual of the person subject to the provisions of sub-sections (a), (b) of (c) above who is (i) the owner of a sole proprietorship, (ii) a general partner in the case of a general, limited or limited liability partnership, (iii) manager or co-manager in the case of a limited liability company, or (iv) an officer in the case of a corporation or any of the entities described in sub-sub-sections (ii) or (iii);

• Amend the monetary threshold of the contribution ban for grant-in-aid from “$100,000 or more” to “more than $100,000”; and

• Remove the language for a password-protected website as well as the appropriation request of $200,000 to fund the development of the password-protected website.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (4-0).

Chair Chee recommended a short recess since the meeting has been going on for over two hours.

*Commission entered recess at 12:09 p.m.

*Commission returned to session at 12:16 p.m.

Chair Chee asked General Counsel Chang to reiterate the amendments in CSC-01 and CSC-06 for decision making.

General Counsel Chang stated that staff is recommending changing the effective date of the bill to July 1, 2026 due to the appropriation request of $2.4 million to correspond with the start of the fiscal year.

Commissioner Polk moved to approve CSC-01 as amended by staff.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (4-0).

General Counsel Chang stated that staff’s recommendation for CSC-06 is to amend the title to remove the word “modernization” from the title as well as in the description.

Commissioner Polk moved to approve CSC-03 as amended by staff.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Itomura.  Motion carried (4-0).

General Counsel Chang reported to the Commission on a bill proposed by the State Ethics Commission.  She stated that the ban intends to prohibit political fundraising by high-ranking state executive branch officers.  She believes that it may be viewed side-by-side with CSC-03 during legislative session as it also mentions contracts and procurement decisions.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao added that this bill cites to the Commission’s statute and has an impact on campaign contributions.

Commissioner Wong commented that State Ethics Commission’s bill states that high-ranking state executive branch officers cannot organize, attend, host, or solicit contributions but not whether they are allowed to make contributions to candidates.  He found it somewhat odd and broad at the same time.  Deputy Attorney General Park commented that she reviewed some of these aspects of the bill.

Chair Chee stated that there were some minor concerns with the approach of the State Ethics Commission’s bill, but overall, the Commission is in support of the idea.

Associate Director Baldomero suggested that State Ethics Commission might lean on the Commission’s contribution data and fundraiser notices to enforce this bill

Report from Executive Director
*Report on Compliance of Filing Timely Disclosure Reports – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that she has no update on this matter and that there were no further reports due this year.

*Report on 2025 Mahalo Message – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that she will be sending out holiday greetings on behalf of the Commission to extend our gratitude and appreciation to the support we received from various agencies this past year and that is expected to be sent out by 12/15/25.

Executive Session
*Consideration and Approval of Executive Session Minutes of Meeting on 10/8/25 – Chair Chee asked if there were no corrections or amendments to the proposed executive session minutes on 10/8/25, he would ask for a motion in open session to approve them.

Commissioner Polk moved to approve the executive session minutes on 10/8/25. Motion seconded by Commissioner Itomura.  Motion carried (4-0).

There being no further business, Chair Chee stated that the Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Friday, December 19, 2025 and asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Commissioner Itomura moved to adjourn the meeting.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (4-0).

Meeting Adjourned at 12:34 p.m.