Harris insists campaign inquiry unfair

By Johnny Brannon
Advertiser Staff Writer

Mayor Jeremy Harris and his campaign committee have continually blasted the state Campaign Spending Commission for what they characterize as a biased and extraordinary focus on Harris' fund-raising efforts. But other Hawai'i politicians have felt the sting of similar scrutiny, and commission executive director Robert Watada said he wants only to hold them all equally accountable.

Robert Watada cited shortage of staff as a problem. Advertiser library photo • Dec. 6, 2001

By contrast, Harris has charged, the commission hounded his campaign to provide missing names of employers for contributors who gave more than $1,000 each to his 2000 re-election effort.

And some of the Harris campaign's biggest complaints are about Watada's dealings with the news media.

"Every campaign is plagued by the same reporting problems as the Harris campaign," said campaign attorney Chris Parsons. "Yet Mr. Watada, as a public servant, aired his personal suspicions about the Harris campaign in the media repeatedly, and gave reporters information about his investigations before he'd completed them. He hasn't done this with any other campaign. That's not only singling us out, it's unethical."

The campaign has filed a state ethics complaint against Watada, but Watada said he simply tries to be straightforward about answering reporters' questions, and that he hasn't singled out Harris or anyone else.

"The only thing I want to do is make sure the truth is told," Watada said. "We have information, and I think the worst thing we can do is hide the information. That's when people really get suspicious of government."

Regarding the missing employer names, Watada said it became important to obtain them after a pattern of possibly intentional alleged illegal contributions to the Harris campaign began to emerge.

Identifying the employers was necessary to help determine which ones may have illegally reimbursed employees for money they gave to the campaign to circumvent the $4,000 per donor limit, Watada said. Investigators looked for evidence of deliberate money laundering by other campaigns but did not find any, he said.

The commission has fined nine companies and individual donors for making excess contributions to Harris, and voted last month to seek a criminal investigation of the campaign itself. Harris and his campaign have denied any deliberate wrongdoing.

Watada said he will continue to scrutinize filings by other campaigns, including Lingle's, for missing information or other problems, but that limited resources sometimes require him set priorities.

"We'll eventually get to the Lingle campaign, but we don't have a whole lot of people here," he said.

Lingle said her campaign would cooperate fully regarding any missing contributor data, but that it was important to draw a distinction between that and the allegations Harris is facing.

"We have asked the Campaign Spending Commission to provide a list of any contributors who they say did not list their occupation," Lingle said. "But that's something that's clerical, not criminal."

Lingle's campaign treasurer, Kathi Thomason, said at least some of the contributors who did not list their employers may have been retirees. The law requires contributors who give more than $1,000 to disclose the name of their employer, but Thomason said some supporters may have given smaller amounts on several occasions and not realized the need to list an employer once the total reached $1,000.

Lingle had a dispute with the Campaign Spending Commission in 1998, but said it didn't compare to the allegations the Harris campaign is facing.

Shortly before the 1998 election, the commission voted to seek a criminal investigation of the Hawai'i Democratic Party's complaint that Lingle had violated voluntary campaign spending limits and failed to report it. City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle found no basis for the pursuing the case.

Exceeding the voluntary limits "was also a clerical issue, and for them to refer it to the prosecutor didn't make sense," Lingle said. "It's important that the public not believe this [the Harris investigation] is just one more case. It's clerical versus criminal, accidental versus intentional."

Lingle stressed that she had not seen any evidence related to the allegations against Harris' campaign and could therefore not judge whether they were credible.

Harris and his campaign complain that the commission did not give them a chance to refute any evidence before sending the case to the prosecutor. Watada said evidence was kept confidential to protect innocent people who were listed as contributors to Harris but never donated to the campaign.

Reach Johnny Brannon at jbrannon@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8070