A group representing those who support Act 221, the technology tax credit being debated at the Legislature, visited The Advertiser recently to discuss what they perceived as our negative coverage about the issue and gave us some background on why Act 221 needs to be supported and extended.

Nobody has covered the ups and downs of Act 221 as much as The Advertiser, dating back to Jim Dooley's March 3, 2002, story revealing that of the first $30 million in tax credits issued in the first several months of the 2001 law, more than half went to a teen film, "Surf Girls," later distributed as "Blue Crush." At the time, there was intense debate as to whether the credits were really intended for one-time projects such as movies that would not be creating any permanent jobs in Hawai'i.

In the eight years since the law was enacted, we have written 120 stories about Act 221, more than 20 editorials and printed numerous letters and op-ed pieces. Jay Fidell's Think Tech blog and column have often touted the benefits of Act 221 (while sometimes criticizing Advertiser stories) and our editorials have supported the basic tenets of the law, arguing that tech development should be nurtured and developed.

"Clearly the Legislature and the state should not lose sight of the important premise of Act 221, which is increasingly important in today's economy," our editorial page read on Dec. 30 of last year. "That is to diversify Hawai'i's tourism-based economy and to build a technology sector here resulting in higher-paying jobs."

Advocates of Act 221, including the Hawaii Science & Technology Council — whose president and six tech leaders met with us last month — believe The Advertiser's news coverage has overemphasized the negative aspects of Act 221 while giving short shrift to the positive. They find it unfair that out of so many tax credits on the books, this one should generate the most heat.

They look at headlines such as "Rich claim 95% of tech credits," "Tech tax credits cost state $747 million," and "Tech credit called 'substantial drain,' " as evidence that our coverage is not balanced.

There is no question that we have scrutinized Act 221 and the subsequent Act 215 in depth. Tax breaks that have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and are still mired in secrecy demand our attention.

Even though public information is finally coming to light about companies that have taken advantage of Act 221 credits, it is limited only to company names. Other details, such as what the companies do, the amount of money they raise or the number of workers they employ, are absent. It has been a difficult and time-consuming fight for The Advertiser to get to the bottom of whether every business that qualifies for the credit has a legitimate stake in claiming it.

Advocates say we focus on the few bad examples of Act 221 in an attempt to overshadow the good it is doing.

As for the story about the wealthy claiming most of the tech credits, the point wasn't that federal securities laws limit equity investments to those with higher-income levels but rather a starting point for debate about whether Act 221 could have been structured, as many renewable energy tax credits are, to help lower-income investors. Even our Hawaii Science & Technology Council friends couldn't disagree that some discussion about possible restructuring was in order.

In all stories, we have quoted the Department of Taxation's estimates of job creation and the $1.2 billion in tech investments between 2002 and 2007, resulting in companies spending about $1.4 billion in the state. There are many deserving companies that benefit from the credit. But to turn a blind eye to whether Act 221 is doing what its backers claim would be a public disservice.