EDITORIAL
Spending law should be matched in Hawai'i

The sweeping campaign finance bill passed by the U.S. Senate yesterday will not end, once and for all, the unhealthy influence of big money on politics.

But it will go a long way toward dismantling a cynical and expensive system that has been built since the last wave of campaign reform following the Watergate scandals in 1974.

Hawai'i lawmakers, who are considering an array of campaign finance "reform" measures themselves, should take the signal and pass similar legislation at the local level. And while they are at it, they should adopt the existing federal standard that prohibits direct political contributions from unions, businesses and corporations.

One provision of the new federal law (assuming President Bush signs it) is that while it will ban so-called unlimited "soft" money contributions to the national political parties, it will allow similar contributions to local parties. The local parties will still be able to accept up to $10,000 per contributor for use in get-out-the-vote and party-building efforts.

Hawai'i lawmakers should get out in front of the inevitable and find a way to further limit soft money contributions to local parties. Otherwise, much of the action that now takes place at the national level will simply shift here.

Another aspect of the new federal law that should be matched here is a new ban on so-called "issue" ads bought by unions, corporations and independent groups in the days close to an election. While these ads are ostensibly focused on issues, they generally turn out to be "hit" ads aimed at particular candidates.

They are yet another way for big-money groups to throw cash behind a favored candidate.

Some have argued that these limitations violate the First Amendment. But interest groups, ranging from the American Rifle Association through the American Civil Liberties Union, would still be able to put out ads advocating their cause right up to election day. And issue ads paid for through "hard," that is, individual contributions rather than bought by unions or corporations, would also still be allowed.

This new federal law and the state law that should match or beat it will not eliminate the influence of money on politics. That is an unrealistic goal.

But if it limits the worst abuses and gives voters a sense that their voice once again can be heard, however faintly, in the howl of big-money politics, then it is well worth the effort.