EDITORIAL
Campaign reform shows signs of life

It's heartening that the give-and-take of legislative conference committee deliberations has rescued — at least partly — an effort to "reform" the political contribution system in Hawai'i.

At this point, the measure still falls short of what could, and should, be done. But even as a partial compromise step, it suggests that legislators are beginning to wake up to the poisonous influence of excessive campaign contributions on the political process. The harm comes in two forms:

• The first is the "amplifying" effect that comes from large contributions. Big companies and unions that can arrange mass contributions to candidates simply have a larger "voice" in the political process than the average citizen.
• The appearance, if not the reality, of the corrupting impact of money on public business. There is an assumption on the part of the public that those who give large sums expect extra access or extra attention from those who receive the cash. It hardly matters whether the quid pro quo relationship exists; the mere appearance of it is enough to stimulate cynicism about the political process.

The solution to these two matters would appear straightforward:

For the first, limit the amount that the wealthy can contribute through bundling of contributions or hiding them in so-called political action committees.

For the second, either prohibit the awarding of government contracts to active contributors or ban contributions from that sector.

Since they are so close to these systems, it is difficult for lawmakers to avoid seeing the infinite complexities and possible loopholes in any such system.

As a result, legislation usually dies or becomes so watered down as to be virtually useless. What is emerging this session is, admittedly, a compromise, but it moves the state forward toward a more transparent, fair campaign contribution system.

It would cap total contributions from a company or union during any election cycle to $6,000. That's far less of what is accomplished today.

It would also prohibit the award of government contracts to companies or individuals who made political contributions in the past two years. But the ban would not apply if the contributions came from "minority owners" (less than 25 percent) of a company or if the receiving politician was not in a position to award government contracts.

So these are compromises that may avail themselves to loophole hunters down the road. But it is a start, and an important one, in breaking the nexus between money and politics that is the cause of so much political cynicism today.