EDITORIAL
High court hits the right note on campaign money

Yesterday's narrow U.S. Supreme Court decision on campaign finance reform strikes the right balance between legitimate free-speech concerns and the need to root out the influence of excessive money on politics.

While the law focuses on federal elections, it will have an impact in the states — including Hawai'i — because it generally stops the flow of so-called "soft money" through local party organizations.

Soft money is unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions that go to political parties or to issue organizations. It quickly finds its way into individual political campaigns.

More than anything, the new law sends a strong signal, backed by the court, that the potentially corrupting influence of big, often hidden money in political campaigns will not be tolerated.

And even with the Supreme Court's blessing, there may be need for small changes to the law once it has been in place for an election cycle or two.

For instance, the "blackout" periods for so-called issue ads may be too sweeping in that they cover too great a stretch of a typical election period.

Free-speech advocates joined with special-interest groups in opposing this law. After all, it places restrictions both in time and amount on political advertising.

But Congress, and now apparently the U.S. Supreme Court, recognized a balancing test. Yes, people should have a right to speak out on public issues or matters of contention within government.

Yet it was patently obvious that many groups were using this system not to advocate for their cause but to campaign not-so-subtly for or against a specific candidate. In so doing, these groups were getting around the edge of the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley v. Valeo ruling that upheld contribution limits.

It could be said that the court was ruling not so much on the issue of free speech, but on the secrecy and chicanery that sometimes surround that speech.

The core of the current law is a prohibition on the use of soft money, which has come to dominate presidential and congressional elections and has even flowed down into local elections in Hawai'i and elsewhere.

Now that the Supreme Court has validated these new restrictions, Hawai'i lawmakers should take a fresh look at what might be possible locally by way of further campaign finance reform.

One place to start would be to ban contributions from corporations and unions, a practice that leads to at least the appearance of favor buying by well-heeled organizations.

There is no illusion that this law will once and for all clean up the campaign process. As the court said: "Money, like water, will always find an outlet."

But it is an important step and the Supreme Court ruling says it is a constitutional one.