Editorials
Friday, February 6, 1998IT took more than three years for the courts to strike down a flawed Honolulu ordinance banning campaign contributions from holders of nonbid city contracts to candidates in city races. City attorneys recommended against passage and were hesitant about enforcing the law following its enactment, which should have sent the City Council back to the drafting board instead of resulting in the lengthy litigation. Dealing with problem
of political donationsThe ordinance sent politicians scrambling after its enactment in January 1995. Mayor Harris hurriedly tried to collect as many contributions from city nonbid contractors as he could in the weeks before the ordinance took effect.
Then-City Council Chairman Arnold Morgado collected thousands of dollars in such contributions for his mayoral campaign after it took effect, then launched a court challenge of any enforcement of the ordinance, although none ensued.
Keith Kaneshiro, the city prosecutor at the time, refused to enforce the ordinance, viewing it as a First Amendment violation of the right to contribute to political campaigns, although courts have ruled that limits can be placed on contributors as well as candidates. Then-Corporation Counsel Darolyn Lendio questioned whether the vagueness of the ordinance could withstand scrutiny.
Without addressing the constitutional issues, Circuit Judge Kevin Chang now has ruled that the ordinance conflicts with state law and is thus invalid.
Any attempt to apply special restrictions on campaign contributions by city or state contractors are sure to raise constitutional issues. A person should not have to forfeit the right of free speech -- exercised in this case by contributing money -- by obtaining a government contract. Any further attempt to impose such a ban is bound to result in more court challenges.
Political contributions by people doing business with government can have a corrupting influence. This is a real problem, at the state and national levels as well. But efforts to deal with the problem must respect constitutional rights. The best deterrent against business people being rewarded for their political contributions may be public disclosure.
THE City Council's zoning committee made the right decision in approving the application of the Home Depot hardware chain for rezoning of land in Pearl City over the opposition of local merchants. The full Council should follow up with a final OK. Rezoning decision
Not only will Leeward Oahu consumers benefit from increased competition, which should bring a wider selection of products and probably lower prices. The decision is also important for the whole state economy. It reinforces the message that Hawaii welcomes mainland and foreign investors. They are essential to the efforts to revitalize the stagnant economy.
Home Depot will be a tough competitor for smaller hardware dealers, but they already have to contend with Eagle, another giant mainland chain, which has a store at Waikele. In any event, Home Depot also plans a store in Iwilei and needs no rezoning approval to proceed with that store.
In recent years a number of mainland retail chains have established themselves in the islands, attracted by the high volume of sales of existing stores. This trend is changing the retailing environment. Smaller stores may have to find a special niche of the market to survive.
Efforts to exclude retailing competitors from Hawaii are not new. They go back at least as far as the old Big Five's early postwar attempts to shut out Sears. Home Depot is the latest target. When such efforts succeed -- and they can't succeed indefinitely -- the consumer is the real loser.
HAWAII Citizens for the Separation of State and Church ought to go after Daniel Akaka. The Hawaii senator served as this year's chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. In his opening remarks at the gathering, which was held at a Washington hotel and attended by President and Mrs. Clinton and about 4,000 other people, Akaka even mentioned the word God. Prayer breakfast
The Hawaii group charged last year that the annual Governor's and Mayors' Prayer Breakfast violated the First Amendment prohibition of "an establishment of religion" and demanded that the governor, the four mayors and military "disentangle themselves from the event and terminate the practice of inviting attendees."
As a result of the group's protest, the name was changed to the Hawaii Prayer Breakfast. However, Mayor Harris said the change wouldn't alter the purpose of the event and he would continue to participate.
This is an instance of taking the principle of separation of church and state to absurd lengths. The same First Amendment that contains the establishment clause also provides for freedom of religion. Public officials have the same right to worship as everyone else. As long as no public funds or public property are involved, there should be no issue of separation of church and state.
But the advocates of total separation don't see it that way. How long will it be before they go after Senator Akaka for taking a leading role in the National Prayer Breakfast? How long will it be before they go after any public official who dares to go to church? And what about all the religious services that are conducted on military bases? And the prayers at the opening of the Legislature?
The champions of total separation of church and state have their work cut out for them.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
