EDITORIAL
Bank contribution plan only tentative step

The decision by First Hawaiian Bank to cease making corporate political contributions to local candidates is a welcome, although relatively minor, step forward in the process of reforming campaign spending in the Islands.

First Hawaiian CEO Walter Dods announced the new policy in the wake of his brief flirtation with the idea of running for governor. Ultimately, he chose not to, but said the experience made him more aware of the problems inherent in the current system.

By abandoning corporate contributions, First Hawaiian joins its major competitor, Bank of Hawai'i, which has long maintained a ban on direct corporate contributions to campaigns.

Corporate contributions are illegal under federal law for federal candidates but are legal in Hawai'i for local races. A bill to ban such contributions — at least to executive branch officials — was just vetoed by Gov. Ben Cayetano because it failed to include legislators.

While we understand Cayetano's concerns (in fact, we share them) we continue to believe it would have been better to let this bill become law even with that flaw. It would have at least established the principle that contributions from corporations, unions and direct government contractors should not be accepted.

In terms of the Hawai'i political scene, that would have been a major advance.

The fact that First Hawaiian has joined the ranks of those who voluntarily have ended corporate contributions hardly means that the bank, and its employees, will no longer be politically active.

In fact, Dods says he encourages his employees to remain active in politics, as volunteers or individual contributors.

And both banks will remain within the ranks of many corporations that maintain a separate political action committee that gives to candidates. Employees put money into the action committee, which in turn funnels it to candidates.

First Hawaiian limits its PAC contributions to federal office-seekers.

Thus the separation of the bank and the campaign money game remains somewhat symbolic. Consider it a tentative step down the road toward true reform of the system.

Dods made the point that whether such corporate contributions truly affect the decision-making of candidates and officeholders is almost beside the point.

"The public always assumed the worst: that elected officials are in the pocket of special interests and contributors are getting preferential treatment," he said.

Unhappily, those assumptions will continue to be held until the nexus between political campaigning and money from well-heeled interest groups, from business to labor unions, is severed completely.