By Richard Borreca

Wednesday, September 11, 1996

If the change occurs, the public can thank former state House Speaker Daniel Kihano for the heightened sense of fiscal responsibility - not because of Kihano's legislative achievements, but because of his indictment by a federal grand jury last month, on charges that he used his campaign funds to pay personal expenses.

Kihano was also charged with filing false tax returns and obstruction of justice.

U.S. Attorney Steven S. Alm said Kihano was taking money out of his campaign and putting it in his pocket.

"Taking from your campaign fund and putting it in your pocket in cash, that is wrong," Alm said.

The Kihano case fires up a spotlight on an amazing hole in election laws. Candidates are free to use campaign money for a multitude of purposes. They can use it to do all of the normal political things, such as polling, advertising, advice and travel.

But when they start to see themselves as becoming larger than life, when they assume that their very existence is continuing some political campaign, then the trouble starts.

The state Campaign Spending Commission has started to crack down on the problem by coming up with a list of forbidden expenses.

For instance, politicians aren't suppose to take the money they wring out of supporters and buy, rent or lease cars for their personal use. They aren't supposed to take vacations on campaign money. And they aren't supposed to fluff up the wardrobe at Reyn's on the campaign dime.

Danny Kihano never struck me as one of the Legislature's high rollers when he was serving as a representative. His indictment doesn't allege that he got much from his campaign kitty.

But it was enough to draw the wrath of the federal government and a grand jury.

The lesson to be learned is that the money supporters give isn't an all-night ATM to be used whenever the personal checking account is a little tight.

If you go through recently filed campaign spending reports it becomes obvious that money given to many politicians is money they assume they can do with as they wish.

Politicians of both genders consider the expenses run up at beauty parlor and the barber shop to be legitimate campaign expenses. Aloha shirts and dresses are constantly being charged to the campaign.

OF course if one haircut is going to get you elected then all haircuts and all dresses and shirts should be deducted. Or does one shirt help you get elected and one have no effect while another actually hurts your campaign?

Amazingly, unless the Campaign Spending Commission continues to tighten the screws and the feds continue to indict, the practice will continue.

Campaign supporters, who usually are giving the money in order to gain the attention of a candidate, really don't care what the pol does with the money. As long as the pol gets it and knows where it came from, the contributor is happy.

So next time you are at a political event, admire all the haircuts and clothes worn by the politicians. You probably paid for them.