The state Campaign Spending Commission voted unanimously yesterday to dismiss a complaint against several fishermen who took out full-page newspaper advertisements critical of the Lingle administration last November without registering as a political action committee or following ad criteria in the state's campaign finance law.

The commission ruled 4-0 that the ads were issue advocacy and protected from regulation by the First Amendment. Commissioners had initially ruled in April that the ads should have been regulated under state law but changed their opinion due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that distinguished issue advocacy from express advocacy that calls for the election or defeat of specific candidates.

"I think we have no choice. The Supreme Court laid down the law," Commissioner Steven Olbrich said.

In dismissing the complaint, the commission sent a clear signal before the 2008 elections that issue ads, even those that appear to favor specific candidates or ballot questions, will not be regulated under state law.

"This is a setback," Keiko Bonk, an environmental activist, told the commission.

Bonk said the fishermen behind the ads, including those with ties to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Islands Fisheries Group, were involved in a sophisticated effort to target the Lingle administration's fishing regulations.

The ads, published two days before the November elections, claimed the "current administration" did not support fishing and urged fishermen to vote. The ads did not mention Gov. Linda Lingle or any other candidate.

The fishermen said they took out the ads after hearing a state Department of Land and Natural Resources official claim fishermen did not vote.

Carl Jellings, a fisherman from Wai'anae, told the commission that he and other fishermen helped pay for the ads through small donations. "As far as I'm concerned, this thing was innocent," he said.

In June, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the court ruled 5-4 to distinguish issue advocacy from express advocacy on First Amendment grounds. The ruling provided guidelines, finding that ads are issue advocacy unless there is no reasonable interpretation other than the ads are an appeal to vote for or against specific candidates.

Barbara Wong, the commission's executive director, said the court's ruling would make spending on political advertising less transparent to the public. She had recommended that the commission dismiss the complaint against the fishermen because of the court's ruling but acknowledged it was a difficult decision.

The timing of the ads so close to the election and the identification of the "current administration" made it appear as if Lingle was the target. But Wong said the commission had to base its decision on the content of the ads and not the intent.

"It's a close call. It's not a slam dunk," Wong said.

Reach Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com.