Pity the poor millionaire.

When it comes to politics, no one likes the guy with bags of money.

That's the assumption behind just about every attempt to regulate campaign money: Reformers are convinced that money corrupts the political process.

In Hawai'i, campaign reformers won one this year when the Legislature passed a local version of the so-called "Clean Elections" or Voter-Owned Elections bill. It is effectively an expansion of the partial public funding system Hawai'i has had for years.

The law is set to be tested for the first time this fall on the Big Island, where candidates for the County Council will be able to use public, or taxpayer, money to completely pay for their campaigns.

But wait a minute. The law is not universally popular. And now opponents may have a new weapon. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2002 federal law, commonly called the "Millionaires Amendment," that sought to level the playing field when one candidate spends tons of his own money against a poorer candidate.

Some, including blogger Ian Lind, fear that the court's narrow 5-4 decision could be used to threaten the Hawai'i Voter-Owned bill, which also seeks to level the playing field. If a rich candidate spends more than a candidate who takes public funds, new rules kick in. The "poor" candidate can receive additional public funds and the "rich" candidate is forced to virtually "tell all" by declaring any spending over $1,000 within 24 hours.

This may look like government infringing on the rich guy's free speech rights since it imposes new conditions on his campaign and sides with the state-funded candidate.

But there are important differences between the Hawai'i law and the one rejected by the Supreme Court. The justices focused on the part of the federal law that allowed the millionaire's opponent to go back to donors and collect more than what the law normally allows. The high court has already held that contribution limits are constitutional, as long as they are applied equally to all.

That equality concept would be lost under the Millionaires Amendment.

But the Hawai'i law is a little different. It doesn't wipe out existing contribution limits when the rich candidate gets generous with himself. It simply pumps additional cash into his opponent's campaign. The candidate accepting public money cannot accept private contributions at all.

It may be that the Voter-Owned law is different enough so that it will stand up to a constitutional challenge. What's less clear is whether it will outlast a "reality" challenge. Is it truly possible to make one candidate precisely like another, so that no one has any advantage other than the quality of his ideas? That's doubtful.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.