The year Isle politics got a jolt
By Jerry Burris
In time, the year 2004 may go down as one of the most important in Hawai'i's political history.
That may be difficult to see now, because we are in the middle of it. But in time, 2004 may be seen as the year in which the very structure of political culture in the Islands was shaken and broken.
If that sounds overstated, consider:
Dozens — literally dozens — of well-known and respected local residents have been hauled before the Campaign Spending Commission or the Honolulu prosecutor for violations of the state's campaign spending law.
The picture that has emerged is a culture, accepted and well-understood, of campaign financing that violates the very heart of our campaign spending laws.
What we saw was one big wink at the laws passed by the Legislature to mollify do-gooders and editorialists who somehow believe that money is a corrupting influence in the political world.
Thus far, there has been no convincing case made of a quid pro quo — favors done or contracts awarded in exchange for political contributions — and there may never be. Who would be so unsophisticated as to demand contributions in direct exchange for government favors?
No, the corrosion was more subtle. Most of those who have been slapped by the Campaign Spending Commission or brought up on charges by the prosecutor were active government contractors.
It was in their interest to keep the existing system in place. It worked. They knew the current rules, and there was every motivation to maintain the status quo.
The law set fairly strict limits on how much an individual or corporation could give to candidates. So, to up the ante and so the folks you knew would be around for another term, you encouraged family, friends and co-workers to contribute as well.
If you had to shift some of your money into their pockets so they could make the contribution, so what? It was all for the good of the system and the continued prosperity of your company.
One suspects many of those who have been caught truly did not think of this "bundling" as illegal. Rather, it was more akin to aggressive accounting on one's income-tax payments.
They were playing the game according to the rules as they understood them.
The fact that the rules didn't fit with the letter of the law was a small matter.
But now, the rules have changed. A zealous Campaign Spending Commission and an energetic prosecutor have served notice that the law, as plainly written, will be enforced.
The Legislature could change all this by rewriting the rules. It could, for instance, lift all limits on contributions and instead rely on thorough and timely disclosure provisions as an enforcement method.
But more likely, the Legislature will continue to pass restrictions on spending, contributions and the like. It is what the people want.
The difference is that after this past year, it may also be what the people will finally get.
Jerry Burris is The Advertiser's editorial page editor.
