Honolulu Weekly

Cal Kawamoto. Jeremy Harri, Dalton Tanonaka. Their political careers have all been tarnished by accusations of misusing campaign contributions. Kawa-moto allegedly used campaign funds to buy a car. Harris reportedly received donations from private corporations, which had funneled money to the former mayor’s campaign through their employees. Tanonaka failed to report $83,000 that he received from friends. The result: Kawamoto lost his job, Harris lost his shot at governor and Tanonaka lost his freedom.

The laundry list of government corruption scandals involving campaign money has damaged public trust in the government both here in Hawai’i and back in Washington, D.C. However, one Aloha State organization–Voter Owned Hawai’i–hopes to change all that. They’re championing an alternative to the ways politicians currently fund their campaigns. They want clean elections. They want campaigns that are funded by the people not by corporations. By giving candidates a way to publicly fund their campaigns, VOH hopes to help politicians avoid the temptation of accepting handouts from those with special interests.

Founded in Hawai’i over seven years ago, the non-profit Voter Owned Hawai’i has been campaigning to pass a clean elections bill in the Legislature. If passed, the bill would provide state House and Senate candidates with the option to campaign using only public funding. Advocates say the $2.5 million proposal would not only eliminate the influence private interests have on government but encourage more competition in political races.

‘Elections are a public good and deserve to be financed,’ John Higgins, VOH’s community liaison, says. ‘It basically levels the playing field so that people who don’t have money or access to money but have good ideas are able to run a competitive campaign.’

He adds that publicly funded elections in other states have allowed more women and minorities to run for office.

In order to qualify for public campaign funds, the bill would require candidates to gather 200 $5 contributions from registered voters in their respective districts. This number would represent approximately 1.5 percent of the population for a House of Representatives district. That money would be turned in to the state Campaign Spending Commission, which would then issue a debit card and checkbook to the candidate. Any purchases the candidate would make thereafter would be on record for everyone to see. ‘If you’re publicly funded, then everything you spend your money on is totally transparent,’ says VOH Field Director Kory Payne.

Signs of the times: Voter Owned Hawai’i wants clean elections.

The amount of money awarded to each candidate would be based on the average amount spent by the winner of each race in the last two elections. For current House of Representative races, that amount would be an estimated $40,000.

Not everybody is a fan of the bill. Opponents of the public funding bill argue that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the campaigns of politicians. Rep. Jon Karamatsu, D-41st, has his doubts. ‘My big concern is taxpayer money going to anybody who qualifies for public funding. Taxpayers won’t have a say on where that money is going,’ he says. ‘It might support a candidate they totally disagree with.’

As for the influence of special interest groups, your Big Tobacco lobbyists, your Big Pharm pushers, Karamatsu says that corporate donations do not have much of an impact on the decisions politicians make. He points to the fact that although tobacco companies offer money to most political candidates–and which many in Hawai’i accept–the legislature has not only repeatedly raised taxes on tobacco but banned smoking in restaurants.

Karamatsu also wonders where the money for the proposal would come from in the budget. According to the representative, any money to pay for the program would have to come from another. ‘What would we put aside for this?’ he asks.

However, supporters argue there isn’t any reason to take away money from other programs and services to pay for public campaign contributions. Higgins says that clean elections would save money in the long term by cutting down on the wasteful spending that comes as a result when lawmakers allow private money to influence their decisions. ‘We’re paying for not having it,’ he says.

Payne disagrees with Karamatsu that campaign donations don’t affect the decision-making process of legislators. ‘Special interests are giving millions of dollars to campaigns,’ he says, ‘They don’t spend that money just because they’re good corporate citizens. They want something back. When they get something back, that’s when taxpayers lose out.’

According to Payne, that ’something back’ includes tax breaks, sweetheart deals and laws that benefit private industry more than the general public. Higgins claims that a public funding bill would also save taxpayer money by encouraging better public policy, like accountability for tax credits that benefit big business.

Consider the case of Act 221. The act, which is also known as the tax credit law, allows for tax breaks to be given to businesses that promote high-tech industry in Hawai’i. Big business jumped all over the credits, and as much $108 million were awarded in the first three years after the law was enacted. However, the state determined in 2004 that up to 20 percent of the awards were found to be fraudulent. ‘That’s a lot of corporate revenue that the state is sacrificing in the hope that the tax credits will spur industry growth and economic growth,’ Higgins says. ‘There’s no way to say that it created one new job or not, because there’s no cost-benefit analysis.’

Several other states have already passed clean election bills of their own. Maine was the first state to begin publicly funding candidates in 1998 after the issue was put to public vote. Arizona followed with a referendum in 2000, and Connecticut recently passed a public funding law by legislative vote, which is set to take effect in the upcoming election. Efforts are being made to pass similar public funding bills in Oregon, New Mexico, New Jersey and North Carolina.

Aside from cutting down on the influence of corporate interests, clean election legislation has also several other notable effects. In Arizona, the number of women and minority candidates has increased since public funding began. Not only that, but voter turnout increased 24 percent from 1998 to 2002.

Arizona has also proven that it’s possible for a candidate to win–and win big–on public contributions alone. In 2002, Janet Napolitano became the first governor to win on a publicly funded campaign.

And Arizona isn’t alone. In Maine’s 2004 election, 79 percent of legislators won using public funding.

Payne said that these states are beginning to see the benefits of clean elections. He says, ‘Overall it makes the legislators more accountable to their constituents, and if they’re more accountable to the constituency, then their actions are going to move toward saving taxpayer money as opposed to leaning toward any kind of corruption.’

Higgins says accountability allows for increased competition, which leads to better public policy since legislators will be more inclined to seek input from community members and not special interests.

He says the plan would allow legislators to deal with lobbyists on a more even level. ‘It’s ridiculous to think that somebody who just gave you $4,000 and then comes into your office is going to be treated the same way as a community member who didn’t give anything,’ Higgins says.

Under the proposed plan, Higgins adds, ‘if a private citizen or a citizen group from the community comes into a legislator’s office, they’ve got as much clout as RJ Reynolds, or the unions, or other special interests.’

Although supporters claim the clean elections bill would alter the political landscape, there is at least one thing it wouldn’t change–it would not eliminate a candidate’s right to collect private contributions. Candidates would still be allowed to run in the traditional manner if they chose to do so. But if they wanted to run ‘clean,’ without the appearance of any outside monetary influence, a candidate could.

More important, there would be little competitive advantage for a politician to take voluntary contributions–at least in most cases. According to Higgins, if a privately funded candidate outspends the publicly funded candidate, the publicly funded candidate would be eligible for a dollar-for-dollar match with the private funds up to two times the original allotment. ‘So if you’re outspent by a privately funded competitor–he spends $50,000 and you got $40,000–you will get $10,000 to match his, and that keeps the publicly funded candidate competitive,’ Higgins says.

He adds that the match system would also decrease the total cost for running a campaign. The reason: Candidates would no longer be compelled to raise more money than their competitors if it will be matched by the state.

This, Payne says, would allow candidates to spend more time meeting the people in their districts and less time fundraising. ‘The one thing that is going to change with this program is that in order to win you have to get on the street and you have to talk to people,’ he says. ‘No more just raise a bunch of money, print up the slick brochures and mail them out to as many people as you can.’

Currently, the clean elections bill (HB 1713) has been stalled in conference committee–which is closed to the public–since 2005. However, that hasn’t stopped the enthusiasm of the bill’s supporters. VOH continues to campaign for the bill on O’ahu, Maui and the Big Island. Volunteers have gone to the State Capitol to educate officials about the bill, canvassed neighborhoods and waved signs on the side of the road.

Payne says that volunteers received a great deal of support from residents. ‘People understand that this is an issue that gets to the heart of corruption,’ he says.

Ultimately, the purpose of the bill is to connect politicians to their constituents. ‘What legislators tell us in other states is that once you’re freed up from having to raise corporate money for your campaign, it forces you to be more in tune with the people in your district,’ Payne says.

‘There are working mothers and fathers who hardly have any free time,’ he adds, ‘If they block time in their schedule to go to a rally or a protest or to go meet with a legislator, they deserve a ton of respect, time and attention and that voice is way more important than what the tobacco companies need.’

For more information about Voter Owned Hawai’i, visit their website at [www.hiclean.org]. To view a list of who contributed to your representative’s 2004 campaign, visit [www.followthemoney.org].