SB 291 clarifies and reorganizes Hawaii’s restrictions on lobbyist contributions during legislative sessions. The bill states that, during any regular or special session of both houses of the Legislature, including extensions, recess days, holidays, weekends, and the five days before and after a session, lobbyists may not make or promise contributions or expenditures to elected officials, candidates, candidate committees, or other persons required to file organizational reports. It also prohibits those recipients from accepting or agreeing to accept such contributions during the covered period.
The measure is framed as an administrative cleanup of Act 128 (Session Laws of Hawaii 2023). It specifies which agency handles enforcement depending on who is involved: the Campaign Spending Commission would oversee elected officials, candidates, candidate committees, and other filers under chapter 11, while the Ethics Commission or other ethics body with jurisdiction over the lobbyist would oversee the lobbyist. The bill also clarifies that prohibited contributions may escheat to the Hawaii election campaign fund and preserves existing law on contingent payments to lobbyists.
Impact
SB 291 would amend sections 11-365 and 97-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to make enforcement of lobbyist contribution restrictions more explicit and administratively divided between the Campaign Spending Commission and the relevant ethics commission. It would also define the prohibited session period more precisely as times when both legislative chambers are in session, plus related extensions and buffer periods. The bill affects lobbyists, elected officials, candidates, candidate committees, and other organizational-report filers by reinforcing contribution bans and clarifying referral and forfeiture procedures.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or routine support for the bill as a technical clarification rather than a major policy change. The bill is described as part of a State Ethics Commission package and as an administrative efficiency measure, which indicates an intent to streamline oversight and reduce ambiguity. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, and the bill was re-referred to JDC, suggesting ongoing legislative review rather than visible controversy in the available record.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is jurisdictional: the bill reallocates oversight responsibilities between the Campaign Spending Commission and the ethics commission with authority over the lobbyist. That division could matter in enforcement cases and may reflect prior ambiguity under Act 128. A second possible issue is the scope of the prohibited period, because the bill defines session broadly to include both houses being in session, plus recesses, holidays, weekends, and five-day buffers before and after sessions, which could be seen as expanding or clarifying the practical reach of the contribution ban. No direct opposition or specific stakeholder objections are included in the provided record.