The state ethics commission has determined that a North Shore legislator did not violate the law when his campaign targeted people in the nonprofit community to raise money while he was a key player in determining which nonprofits received legislative grants.

The Hawai'i State Ethics Commission published an informal opinion this week in response to a complaint that Rep. Michael Magaoay had violated the state's ethics code by using his position as House grants manager to raise tens of thousands of dollars from people in the nonprofit community.

The complaint by an unidentified elected state official was filed after an Advertiser story in December showed that Magaoay, a low-profile legislator who had no House leadership position or major committee chairmanship, went from the bottom third of House fundraisers to the top spot after he got the grants job.

Once he got the job following the 2002 election, his campaign fundraisers started targeting people in the charity sector, and the bulk of his individual donor support over the next two election cycles came from people with ties to that sector, the Advertiser analysis of campaign records showed. Most of those nonprofit-linked donors only started giving to Magaoay after he got the influential grants job, the story noted.

Magaoay in December denied using his grants position to raise money from nonprofits.

In its advisory opinion, which did not name Magaoay or the politician who filed the complaint, the commission noted that there was no evidence to show the legislator violated the ethics code. Although the lawmaker raised significant campaign funds partly from solicitations made to "organizations interested in the legislative matters in question," no evidence was found that any of the contributions were coerced or given as a quid pro quo, the panel determined.

Legislators frequently solicit campaign money from lobbyists, their clients and others who have business before the Legislature, and fundraising events often take place at critical times during the session, the opinion said.

"While these practices may raise issues of concern, the commission noted that until laws are written to change the mechanism for raising campaign contributions, the mere correlation between legislative actions and success in raising campaign funds, without evidence of coercion or a quid pro quo or any other evidence of misuse of position, cannot by itself constitute a violation," the commission wrote.

Magaoay didn't respond to two requests for comment yesterday.

But the commission said in its opinion that the unnamed legislator described the complaint as frivolous and believed it was filed primarily for political purposes, with the upcoming election in mind.

CLOSE RACES SINCE 2000

Magaoay, who was first elected to the House in 2000, has had close races since then. His seat has been targeted by Republicans who consider it vulnerable.

Magaoay told the commission he wasn't the only legislator who was involved in the grants process and that final decisions were made by the money committees, not him.

He also stated that the newspaper insinuated that he misused his legislative position in order to influence people in the nonprofit community to contribute to his campaign, yet the story provided no evidence that he violated any provisions of the ethics law.

The Advertiser quoted nonprofit executives, legislators and Magaoay's campaign strategists who all described him as a key decision-maker in the grants process, and a campaign finance expert who said soliciting funds from nonprofit groups was not illegal — unless there was a quid pro quo.

The campaign finance expert, Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said in December that just because such solicitation was legal didn't make it right. In the roughly 30 years he's tracked campaign financing, Stern said he's never come across a system that targets supporters of charities. "That's especially distasteful," he said.

As in his response to the newspaper, Magaoay denied any impropriety and told the commission his success in raising campaign money was due to the work of his fundraisers. He also said his donors had many reasons to support him besides "the legislative matters in question," according to the commission's opinion.

Dan Mollway, the panel's executive director, said he could not disclose the identity of the politician who filed the complaint or the target of it because of confidentiality rules.

CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUE

Complaints are considered confidential by law unless a hearing, which is public, is held to further pursue the matter. The commission only holds hearings if it believes there is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof that a violation occurred.

That wasn't the case in the Magaoay matter, but the commission issued an informal advisory opinion, which is on its Web site, to educate people about the issues involved.

Although identifying information was stripped from the opinion and specific topics were referred to in vague terms, it was clear the complaint was against Magaoay and stemmed from the Advertiser story, which was part of a series detailing the flaws in the Legislature's grants-in-aid system.

After the series was published, the House abolished its one-person grants subcommittee. Magaoay was the chairman and only member of that subcommittee.