Special interests hurt
By Robert Watada
ideal of democracyRECENTLY, there has been a great deal of controversy over statements presumably made by Bank of Hawaii Chairman and CEO Larry Johnson. I seem to have become part of the commentary because of statements attributed to me in response to what Johnson purportedly said to a reporter. I do not want to belabor the controversy, but would like to add the perspective of a larger picture on our electoral system.
Johnson apparently said that the Bank of Hawaii would give contributions only to those candidates who support the Economic Revitalization Task Force recommendations. The Sierra Club accused Johnson of bribery.
Remember the incident where an individual was convicted of bribery after he offered a contribution in return for a favorable vote to then state Sen. Eloise Tungpalan? Johnson may not have crossed that line, but was he close?
I was asked by a reporter to comment on the statement made by Johnson. I responded that there was no violation of the campaign spending law.
In an ensuing conversation, I said that what Johnson was doing, i.e. rewarding those who agree with one's point of view, is the system we have in our community. Special-interest money flows to candidates with views that agree with the special interest.
But if democracy is for the greatest good, I believe that the system of private contributions is flawed.
Free and unfettered elections of our representatives is a cherished institution in our country. In fact, it is the foundation of America.
The people, by secret vote, elect individuals to represent their will and interest. We trust these individuals will make and carry out fair laws.
Yet based on the notion that candidates need money to get their message out to the electorate, we have a system that requires candidates to seek out contributions from private donors.
Unfortunately, very few people in the general public are willing to give money to politicians solely to see them get elected. This leaves the candidate to depend on those special interests that want the candidate elected to represent their interests.
The vast majority of contributions that go to candidates are from these special interests. A more cynical perspective is that votes are for sale and go to the highest bidder.
In this system, money and politics are inextricable. The politician is driven by the quest for money.
To put it in perspective, for a gubernatorial candidate to raise $2 million to make a modest run for the office of governor, he or she will need to raise contributions of almost $10,000 a week, every week for four years.
The quickest and easiest way to do this is to cater to the special interests that have the resources to give large contributions.
It is obvious, then, that those with large sums of money will have undue influence over those without money. In time, we will see an erosion of democracy.
Is there an alternative to this system? The state of Maine, through voter initiative, enacted legislation last year that attempts to move toward public funding of political campaigns.
In general, such public funding is more equitable to the electorate than the current system of private contributions.
There is a stigma attached to the idea that tax dollars go to elected politicians, and it is expensive. But the electorate pays for private contributions anyway through higher prices charged by the companies, government contracts to contributors, and the loss of democracy.
The deleterious effects of the system of private contributions to political candidates should be an important public debate.
Perhaps the Larry Johnson controversy is an opportune time to start this much-needed conversation.
Robert Y. Watada is executive director
of the Campaign Spending Commission.