WHEN Bank of Hawaii's Larry Johnson suggested that his firm's political action committee would contribute only to those who supported the recommendations of Gov. Ben Cayetano's economic task force, it seemed like a no-nonsense business approach. Policing political campaign contributions
Public interest groups, however, immediately saw Johnson's effort as bribery.
The interest is so intense that it deserves further discussion.
It isn't unusual or startling that a bank would use money to attract someone's attention, nor is it ground-breaking to expect groups such as the Sierra Club and Common Cause to worry about the effect of large sums of money in the political process.
Good intentions meet realpolitik.
"What is good for big business is not always good for the public," David Frankel, Sierra Club director, argued.
The Green Party's Toni Worst added that if Johnson's policy wasn't bribery, perhaps the campaign spending laws should be changed "to protect the integrity of democratic ideals."
Desmond Byrne, speaking for Common Cause, grumped that "we don't like big money being thrown at politicians."
Arlene Kim Ellis with the League of Women Voters called it "a dreadful, dreadful thing."
And that wasn't the half of it. Conservative critics and observers called to say, "Yes, it was bribery."
Another said it made him worry that he was living in a police state where big powers were controlling everything. There was even e-mail from South Korea, where an observer of the local scene fretted over Johnson's comments.
While there is always a worry that big money will distort public policy, the issue might be better looked at in terms of the possible.
In other words, it is one thing to complain that elephants are really big, messy creatures; it is another to say "Let me know when the elephants are coming, so I can get out of the way."
At the risk of irritating both sides, here are some ways to realistically improve the ethical climate of Hawaii's political landscape.
First, give the Campaign Spending Commission the tools to adequately inform the public about who gives money to politicians.
What we as voters need is real information about who is buying whom and for how much.
If it is the voters who decide, give us the way to know.
Hawaii's campaign laws should be strengthened so that by election day you know specifically who is giving to a candidate, who is lending money. Listing names doesn't do it; the actual sources of support have to be disclosed.
Lobbyists should also be included in the disclosure act, because if voters find the financial landscape of the campaign to be murky, the Legislature is a black hole.
ALONG with better laws, the Campaign Spending Commission needs a big, professional staff. The commission has only four employees to watch over every candidate and politician. They need more resources.
Also in dramatic need of help is the state Ethics Commission, which is charged with tracking public officials and lobbyists. But the commission's reports are poorly laid out and hard to follow. And because they are not in electronic or digital form, the information is almost worthless to the public.
Adequately staff the Campaign Spending Commission and bring the Ethics Commission into the computer age and Hawaii would have a bright light shining on its elections.
Read the full text of the
Economic Task Force recommendations.