honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser

Posted on: Friday, February 15, 2002

Editorial
Spending commission should speed up probe

It's not hard to feel the frustration of the Harris campaign organization as the mountain of charges, allegations and accusations against it continue to mount at the state Campaign Spending Commission.

The charges involve serious issues, and no one should for a minute conclude they are not worthy of attention from both the commission and the Harris campaign.

But the commission's vote this week to put off a decision on the latest set of charges for as long as two months puts an unnecessary and unfair black cloud over Jeremy Harris' campaign for governor.

We tend to agree with Harris campaign attorney William McCorriston, who argues that a decision on the charges should be made forthwith. At that point, the campaign could either accept the findings and pay the necessary fines or appeal the decision to the courts.

It is clear Harris feels he has a better shot of prevailing in the courts than at the commission, where he has been the central target of a flurry of campaign spending violation charges.

"I would just as soon have this resolved and not referred into some sinkhole from where it can be resurrected later on, further down, to make it more difficult for Mayor Harris to run a campaign, unless that's the intention here," McCorriston said.

We tend to believe there is no intention to deliberately draw out the suspicion and ambiguity, but that is the ultimate effect of this decision.

The latest charges involve $100,000 Harris raised in "soft money" for the Democratic National Committee in the waning days of the last presidential campaign. There are also allegations he spent some $24,000 on expenses unrelated to his last re-election effort.

The commission staff said the raising of the $100,000 for the national party should have been reported to the Hawai'i regulatory body. That's an interesting point, because while it was clearly the Harris political operation that drummed up the $100,000, it was not for Harris' electoral benefit in any direct way.

As for spending on non-campaign expenses, Harris and his campaign deserve an opportunity to explain the activity if they can.

A newly energized spending commission has been far more resolute in enforcing state spending laws than has traditionally been the case. That's a positive thing, and it puts all candidates on notice that they cannot take state political spending laws lightly.

But it is imperative that the laws be enforced swiftly and decisively as well as fairly. Nothing is more harmful to a candidacy than an unresolved and unanswered controversy.