Who paid for the vote?

The government tells you what was decided. It rarely tells you who funded the people deciding. Here is that question for Hawaiʻi County — the same real record, explained for every reader, from a first-grader to an analyst. Every figure is public; every line is a question to verify, never an accusation.

the sky above · ka lani Kailua-Kona · Kamakahonu — Kamehameha I's royal residence, where the islands were united Hilo — county seat today

Choose how it's told

for keiki · ages 5–8

Some grown-ups give money to help a leader

On Hawaiʻi County, some grown-ups give money to help people become leaders who make the rules. Giving is kind. This map shows who gave money to our 10 leaders. One helper gave money to 3 of them.

Our one gentle question: when the leaders choose about land and houses, do they help everybody — or mostly the people who gave them money? Asking is how we take care of each other.

for grade school · ages 8–11

Follow the money — it's allowed to ask

To get elected you run a campaign, and campaigns cost money, so people give. In the hawaiʻi county council, one leader — Mitch Roth — drew 21.3% of their donations from real-estate businesses (the highest here). One donor, Hawaii Regional Council Of Carpenters, appears behind 3 different members. None of this breaks the law.

The smart question: when they vote on building and land, are they thinking about everyone — or the people who helped pay for their campaign? You can check the real records yourself.

for middle school · ages 11–14 · drafted by the local civic AI

Campaign money, and the land it clusters around

Every campaign contribution in Hawaiʻi is public record. Added up across the hawaiʻi county council's 10 tracked officials, patterns appear: the highest real-estate donor share falls on Mitch Roth, at 21.3% of their donations. One donor, Hawaii Regional Council Of Carpenters, appears behind 3 different members. None of it breaks the law — 'follow the money' just means checking whether the people funding a campaign also have business before the body, and whether the votes line up. It stays a question, checked against the record, not an accusation.

Correlation is not causation — but a sourced, checkable question is exactly what a resident deserves.

for high school · ages 14–18

Concentration, near-unanimity, and how to verify

Hold two things together. Concentration: real-estate/development money can make up a large share of a member's funding — here as high as 21.3% for Mitch Roth. One donor, Hawaii Regional Council Of Carpenters, appears behind 3 different members. And the vote record: Hawaiʻi councils often vote near-unanimously, which is common and is not proof of anything by itself — but paired with concentrated funding it's the pattern watchdogs watch.

How you verify: pull the Campaign Spending Commission filings, the roll-calls, and the recusals. If the money and the votes are unrelated, the record shows it. A checkable question, not a verdict.

for college & adult readers

The method, and its honest limits

We join Hawaiʻi Campaign Spending Commission filings — donor → official, amount, employer — against the hawaiʻi county council's 10 officials and their votes. One donor, Hawaii Regional Council Of Carpenters, appears behind 3 different members. The signal is a donor (or PAC) recurring behind several members; the concentration figure (21.3% for Mitch Roth) is the individual tilt.

The limits are the honest part: a near-unanimous record can reflect consensus, agenda-setting, or pressure — the data can't distinguish them, and a name-match must be verified per identity. The output is not a finding; it's a sourced, reproducible map that makes the question answerable.

for analysts · provenance & reproduction

Sources, the graph, and the caveats

Sources: Hawaiʻi Campaign Spending Commission filings, USASpending awards, roll-calls. The per-official aggregates live in donor_profiles_hi-hawaii.json; the money graph in Neo4j (12sgi-king-neo4j-1) as :Donor–[:FUNDED]→:Representative.

Caveats before any conclusion: near-unanimous vote records are a signal to interpret, not evidence; donor→official name-matches are candidates to verify; facts split hi-<county> + legacy IDs — union both. Every figure is public record; allegation framing is mandatory; the prosecutorial file stays private.

The record, in numbers

21.3%

the highest real-estate donor share on the body — Mitch Roth — a question to verify, not a verdict

members share one donor — Hawaii Regional Council Of Carpenters — the cross-member signal to read (a question, not proof)

tracked Hawaiʻi County Council — every contribution a public Campaign Spending Commission filing

officialtotal raisedreal-estate

Mitch Roth - Hawaii County Mayor$819,52521.3%

Heather Kimball - Hawaii County Council D1$109,4774.3%

Ashley Kierkiewicz - Hawaii County Council D4$92,16911.4%

Dennis Onishi - Hawaii County Council D3$68,88016.7%

Jennifer Kagiwada - Hawaii County Council D2$52,1377.7%

Totals from Hawaiʻi Campaign Spending Commission filings · real-estate share = donations from real-estate / development donors · lawful contributions, shown as a question to verify.