EDITORIAL
Legislators must revisit election finance reform

What better time to push for campaign finance reform than during a city probe into whether lucrative non-bid contracts were awarded in exchange for fat contributions to Mayor Jeremy Harris' campaign?

Whatever the outcome of this investigation, or others, it's clear that the nexus between donations and contracts must be severed for good.

For even the vaguest suggestion of a quid pro quo element to campaign contributions undermines our political system. Hawai'i law sets limits on contributions to individual candidates, but more restrictions are needed.

As it is, donors are allowed to give no more than $6,000 to a candidate for governor during the four-year period prior to an election, and no more than $4,000 to a candidate for mayor.

But the Campaign Spending Commission reports that 32 companies have been fined for making excessive political contributions. Note that the commission is only one-third of the way through the list of firms that appear to have exceeded the limit.

And it's not as though the donors are overjoyed at making big contributions.

Bob Watada, the commission's executive director, says companies have told the commission that they're under tremendous pressure to make campaign contributions if they want to win contracts.

So it's a shame that on the issue of campaign finance reform, Hawai'i isn't further along.

Last session, Gov. Ben Cayetano vetoed a bill that would have banned direct political contributions by corporations, labor unions and government contractors to county and state elected officials who issue contracts.

The governor says he vetoed the measure because lawmakers amended the bill to exempt themselves from its provisions. He had a point, although legislators aren't in a position to award contracts as are the officials who would have been covered. There's no excuse not to pass a better version of this bill next year.

In response to the veto, First Hawaiian Bank CEO Walter Dods announced that his bank would stop making political donations in the spirit of campaign finance reform.

A good bill separating contributions from contracts may not go far enough.

The ultimate reform is public financing of campaigns, which would provide qualifying candidates with a competitive amount of public funds to run for office. This system, which would end reliance on special-interest money altogether, deserves a chance. Two years ago, the Legislature unwisely defeated such a proposal for the City Council.

Versions of it have passed in Maine, Arizona, Vermont and Massachusetts.

And for lawmakers who are ready for hard work in a highly technical arena, the state procurement law is in need of substantial tweaking.

Good companies shouldn't have to suck up to politicians to get public contracts, and taxpayers should be comfortable that they're getting the best deal for their dollar. Smart laws can make that happen.