Posted on: Wednesday, July 7, 2004

EDITORIAL
True campaign reform simple common sense

Another legislative session has gone by without truly substantive campaign financing reform.

As reported by Capitol Bureau writer Lynda Arakawa, lawmakers say full reform is elusive for a variety of reasons:

The first is complexity. It is almost impossible to come up with legislation that is loophole free.

Another reason is relative disinterest on the part of the public in campaign reform.

Let's take these two assertions in turn.

Part of the reason that reform seems so complex is that it is aimed directly at the folks who write the law. Lawmakers are capable of writing extensive, detailed laws controlling the behavior of insurance companies, banks and other institutions.

But when it comes to regulating themselves, the complexities seem to overwhelm.

Real reform won't happen until and unless incumbent legislators step outside themselves and think more about the general good than what would happen to their own campaigns.

The second issue is lack of public concern. Some of this stems from what might be called voter cynicism, the "they're all a bunch of crooks" way of thinking.

This is unfair to the vast majority of legislators who are honest and attempting to do what is right.

But the lack of public concern also suggests too few people recognize the importance of campaign spending reform on their own lives.

A system of campaign financing that rewards insiders and players who know the game effectively shuts out the public from the business of governance. Lobbyists and special-interest groups with the money and time to make their influence felt have far greater say over the course of lawmaking than the general public.

When people recognize this, they give up, leaving politics and governance to the insiders.

This system also tends to stifle fresh voices, since the current system of campaign financing, almost by nature, tends to reward insiders over newcomers.

The "reform" bill passed by the Legislature this year does make some useful changes, but it is far short of what is needed.

Gov. Linda Lingle says she is inclined to veto the measure because it is flawed and could lead to constitutional challenges.

She might also feel that there is little sense in allowing a measure written by majority Democrats to become law heading into an election season. If the bill is far short of a full load, and it is, then why allow it to become campaign fodder?

Legislators have put their finger on what would be key to true campaign reform: breaking the nexus between those who get work (or favors) from government and those who give the big bucks.

This starts with banning contributions from corporations or unions, a reform the federal government long ago adopted.

Then, as has been discussed, the law should ban contributions from government contractors and should forbid the award of non-bid contracts to those who do give.

This isn't rocket science. If you think about it, it is common sense.

As the election season heats up, the very first questions voters should ask all candidates, incumbent or challenger, is where they stand on these common-sense reforms.

If they cannot offer a clear and sensible answer, then it is obvious they do not want your vote.

Don't give it to them.