Editorials
Wednesday, August 5, 1998

Campaign finance
reform wins a round

PROSPECTS for federal campaign finance reform legislation this year are still bleak but a glimmer of hope has emerged from a vote in the House. Fifty-one Republicans deserted their leadership to join 185 Democrats and one independent to pass a reform bill on a 237-186 vote Monday. However, the odds are high against action in the Senate, where a similar measure was pulled last February when supporters failed to attract the 60 votes needed to end debate.

That isn't the only problem. The legislation would also have to beat rival proposals still awaiting action to become the final House version. And if the measure, introduced by Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass., somehow became law it would face constitutional challenges.

The provisions regulating "issue ads" might violate the free speech protection of the First Amendment. They would prohibit issue advocacy groups from referring in ads to federal candidates 60 days before an election unless they raised their money in accordance with tight restrictions. The argument in favor of the regulations is that such messages purport to educate voters but are really aimed at influencing votes on candidates. But the First Amendment protects people's right to express opinions on political issues and candidates.

The biggest loophole in current law is so-called "soft money," the unregulated contributions by corporations and unions to political parties, which circumvent restrictions on gifts to individual candidates. This is a more appropriate target for reformers.

The bill would ban such contributions, which might go far to reduce the excesses in campaign spending. If a total ban isn't achievable, perhaps reasonable limits on such contributions are. The bill would also expand disclosure requirements.

But achieving action on the soft-money issue has been frustrated by legislators who are palpably reluctant to cut off their own sources of campaign funds. In addition, the Republican majority has preferred to focus on investigations of Democratic violations of existing law for obvious reasons.

House Democratic Leader Dick Gephart of Missouri accused the Republicans of making the House "run an obstacle course designed to kill Shays-Meehan." Those tactics haven't succeeded - as yet. However, time is running out.

Limiting campaign spending has proved to be an elusive goal. Crafting legislation that will have the desired effect without running afoul of the First Amendment is difficult at best. The bill passed by the House seems vulnerable on that score, but the effort will continue next year, if necessary, as it should.

Video surveillance

INSTALLATION of video cameras aimed at monitoring criminal activity in Chinatown and Waikiki is planned soon, but the City Council may need to assure their usefulness in court. Council action probably would entail simply setting forth procedures for use of videotape in court proceedings.

A 1996 study conducted at the request of a member of the Mayor's Downtown/Chinatown Task Force found that video cameras strategically situated could reduce fear, increase business, improve an area's image and increase police safety by acting as a backup. At that time, the cities of Baltimore, Virginia Beach, Va., Tacoma, Wash., and New Orleans already had video systems operating. Cameras are commonplace in Honolulu's banks, automatic teller machines and various apartment and office buildings.

A camera installed as part of a pilot program in Chinatown caught a drug transaction on videotape, but Circuit Judge Frances Wong would not allow its introduction as evidence in the case. She explained that no city or state law governs the use of tapes from government-owned video surveillance cameras as evidence in criminal court proceedings. Conversely, no law prohibits the use of videotape in court. It should have to be in compliance only with the standard chain-of-possession requirement, and prosecutors can be expected to succeed in their appeal of Wong's ruling.

The city has installed wiring for 14 cameras in Chinatown and six in Waikiki. The $500,000 project is intended to record evidence of drug trafficking, prostitution and purse-snatching. If successful, it could be expanded to other neighborhoods.

For that to happen, legislation still may be desirable to satisfy any concerns by Wong or other judges. Council Chairman Mufi Hannemann has introduced a bill stating the city's policy in using the cameras. The Council should approve it quickly to allow the cameras to roll - on the streets and in court.

Cambodian elections

MORE than a week after Cambodia's elections, opposition leaders continue to claim fraud and refuse to join a coalition government. Fighting broke out between troops of rival factions. A limited vote recount was under way but the opposition contended it was inadequate.

As a report on this page yesterday illustrated, brutal repression by the Hun Sen regime marked the runup to the elections. They were held one year after Hun Sen, who was originally installed in power by Hanoi, ousted Prince Norodom Ranariddh as his co-premier in a coup d'etat.

Hun Sen hoped that holding the elections would regain for him the respectability he lost in last year's coup, but the opposition has not been willing to cooperate. Hun Sen's party was reported leading in most contests, but apparently would lack the two-thirds of the Assembly seats needed to conduct business without the opposition in attendance.

Even if the vote counting itself was honest, it could hardly be said that the election campaign was conducted fairly. The United States should avoid issuing an endorsement of this highly questionable exercise unless Hun Sen makes an effort to satisfy the opposition's complaints.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

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