View Point
View Point
HOUSE Bill 165 -- innocuously titled, "Relating to Elections" -- was sponsored by all members of the House Democratic Caucus. It was designed, solely, to place one additional barrier in the way of any Republican seeking office. Revenge of the Democrats
The essence of HB 165 is its provision to treat political parties the same as individuals with respect to contributions to candidates. This means that -- while the GOP was permitted by law to contribute as much as $50,000 to gubernatorial candidate Linda Lingle in the 1998 election -- the new law would restrict such contributions to a mere $6,000.
Well, you might say, this law treats both parties alike. Isn't this one way to get campaign contribution reform?
One might logically come to that conclusion -- if you completely ignore the realities of local politics. In Hawaii, where do candidates go to raise money to run for office? Unions contribute almost exclusively to Democrats, except when a Republican incumbent has little or no opposition.
The business community may give token support to Republicans but it is well aware of who make the laws (hint: Democratic incumbents). Candidates also turn to friends and relatives for help, but these small contributions are usually a minor factor.
Then there is the candidate's political party. The Republicans try their best to help candidates, especially those who have a chance to win.
The Democrats don't need to provide assistance to their candidates, because their candidates already have all the resources available to them as incumbents, or are endorsed and assisted by labor organizations.
In fact, the Democrats charge candidates a fee to undertake institutional advertising on their behalf.
Let's look at a specific case in a House race in Central Oahu. The incumbent, whom we'll call "D," had already served a number of legislative terms and had risen to become chairman of an important committee.
This post enabled D to perform innumerable favors for his backers; therefore, he was blessed with an ample war chest and the ability to keep it full. However, polling had shown that the right GOP candidate could usurp his seat.
Two Republicans duked it out in the party's primary. Combined, they garnered far more votes than D received in his primary. "R" emerged as his party's primary winner and his vote total alone was equal to the incumbent's. So far, so good.
But the reality of Hawaii politics set in. D called on his supporters, raised $80,000 and spent a like amount.
Where did it come from? Almost $40,000 came from political action committees and special interest groups. And from the Democratic Party? A minus $600! D's own party dunned him that amount for party ads.
Meanwhile, where did R get his campaign funds? Besides $6,000 in small ($100 or less) contributions, R received $2,000 from one local enterprise and $750 from medical PACs. And from the Republican Party: a $200 cash contribution, $4,000 from leading Republicans and $6,200 in kind for printing services, postage and ads. He also borrowed money so that his total expenditures were around $23,000, much of it spent in the contested primary.
R didn't fare too badly. He received 40 percent of the total vote (4,706), which would have been enough to win in 23 other House districts. But it is patently obvious that R would not have had enough wherewithal to make a challenge without his party's financial support.
This scenario was repeated in district after district. Therefore, to restrict party assistance will have absolutely no impact on Democratic incumbents like D, but will be disastrous for Republican challengers like R.
Democratic reform or revenge? The numbers speak for themselves.
James V. Hall is an author and former
executive director of the Hawaii Republican Party.