TO win the governor's race in Hawaii the state assumes you have to spend $2.6 million. If you agree to that, the state will help you pay for the campaign -- but you have to agree not to spend any more than that. The idea is to limit campaign fund-raising. The U.S. Constitution forbids limiting contributions to a candidate, because that stops someone's right of free speech. Campaign spending
law is contradictoryYou can, however, attack the idea of unlimited fund-raising if you check the amount of money a candidate spends. It has to be a voluntary limit, because of the same U.S. Constitution.
This is what Maui Mayor Linda Lingle did when she agreed to accept state money for her campaign. Like all gubernatorial underdogs before her, Lingle said she would hold her spending in check in return for getting some matching state money.
She would also promise to clearly explain where she got her campaign money -- names, occupations, addresses, the sort of details that investigative reporters like to collect.
Well, she spent more than she promised to, because she collected more. Lingle says she collected more because she needed more and the people of Hawaii wanted to give her more.
This is a strange campaign spending law. It was written by legislators who appreciated the benefits of giving politicians a little wiggle room. Promises made weren't really promises that had to be kept.
According to the law, when you promised to stay within a spending limit, you were also free to back out of that promise. Of course you had to give back the state money, and comply with several other requirements.
Democrats figure Lingle broke the law and did it knowingly, which would make it a crime.
Lingle's campaign says it was an honest miscalculation. From there the controversy devolves into a political squabble where Democrats see the crime of the century and Republicans see some sloppy addition.
The campaign spending commissioners are tossed into the mix, because next week they will have to decide whether something that appears improper happened here. If they say something smells they will investigate it, report back and perhaps send it off for prosecution.
Oddly enough, several times in the past the commission has been presented with evidence of other infractions of campaign spending laws and the result was a shoulder shrug.
For instance, anyone who does more than $50,000 worth of business with the state and makes a political donation must register with the Campaign Spending Commission "within 30 days of the contract."
The commission is then required by law to publish that information in some electronic version so the public can access it.
THE Campaign Spending Commission has a great Internet site (http://www.hawaii. gov/campaign) but there is no mention of the contractor's list. In fact the commission has pretty much ignored the law.
In the past Bob Watada, Campaign Spending Commission executive director, noted that the provision was both difficult and expensive to enforce. But it still is part of the state law and willful violation could still be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
The problem is the law. Written by politicians hoping to put their own spin on who gets elected and how, the law is a jumble of pick-and-choose contradictions. The entire section lends itself to selective enforcement, even if for the best of intentions.
The result, however, is a public left to mistrust all politicians.
Richard Borreca reports on Hawaii's politics every Wednesday.
He can be reached by e-mail at rborreca@pixi.com