Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, February 10, 2001Democrats’ bill
would violate
free speechThe issue: Democratic legislators introduced a bill to prohibit political parties from making independent expenditures in election campaigns.
SOME Hawaii Democrats have a problem with the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and press. A federal judge last year threw out a law passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature that gave the Campaign Spending Commission authority to censure political candidates for remarks it deemed offensive -- a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Another federal judge threw out a Hawaii law requiring the daily newspapers to divulge financial information beyond that required of other businesses. The judge said the law, besides conflicting with federal legislation, raised First Amendment concerns.
The Cayetano administration tried to muzzle State Farm Insurance by claiming that its ads concerning auto insurance bills before the Legislature -- which took issue with the administration -- constituted misleading advertising. In fact, the company had every right under the First Amendment to express its opinion about proposed legislation that would have affected it.
A former Health Department director under Cayetano declared that opponents of a decision to locate a mental health facility on the Fort Street Mall would be violating state law if they protested against the project.
When the Star-Bulletin pointed out that the First Amendment would protect the critics, the health executive called the observation "unforgivable." What was unforgivable was ignorance of constitutional rights by a state department head.
The Cayetano administration brought a complaint to the Honolulu Community-Media Council against a newspaper reporter who had written about a report critical of the administration's small-business policies. The reporter was subsequently fired.
The governor's office then announced that the complaint had been withdrawn but threatened to reinstate it if she were rehired -- a blatant attempt to intimidate the press.
Now state House Democrats have introduced a bill that would prohibit political parties from making independent expenditures in an election campaign.
Linda Lingle, chairwoman of the Hawaii Republican Party, blasted the measure as "ridiculous and unconstitutional." Robert Watada, executive director of the Campaign Spending Commission, also testified that the measure was probably unconstitutional.
Lingle pointed out that the bill, while targeting political parties, would not apply to labor unions, which almost always side with the Democrats. But even if that flaw had been absent, the bill would violate the First Amendment.
Rep. Brian Schatz, the Democratic whip, called the measure "an honest attempt to address the problems of soft money," but said it would be killed.
We call it an attempt by Democratic legislators with no appreciation for freedom of speech and press to muzzle political expression -- in particular by the minority party. Campaign spending reforms must be consistent with First Amendment freedoms, but some politicians are oblivious to that fact.
Clinton abused pardon
BILL Clinton was elected president under the cloud of the Whitewater scandal and Gennifer Flowers' allegations of an extramarital affair while he was governor of Arkansas. Eight years later, he has left the White House still under a cloud.
The last outrage -- there is no space to enumerate all of them -- concerns the last-minute presidential pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive millionaire who has lived in Switzerland -- from where he could not be extradited -- since just before he was indicted in 1983 on charges of evading more than $48 million in taxes, fraud and participating in illegal oil deals with Iran.
Rich's former wife, Denise, was a major contributor to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign. She wrote to Clinton requesting the pardon.
Denise Rich invoked the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before the House Government Reform Committee. The chairman, Dan Burton, R-Ind., said the panel would probably ask the Justice Department for a grant of immunity to compel her to testify.
Clinton has said he decided to grant the pardon after being briefed by Jack Quinn, Rich's lawyer, who was formerly White House counsel under Clinton. This was itself improper.
At the hearing former U.S. prosecutors involved in the Rich case vigorously denounced the pardon.
Former Deputy Attorney General Erich Holder, who recommended it, testified he would have tried to stop the pardon if he had known the full details of the financier's case, but admitted he did not pay much attention to the case in the flood of pardon requests that came from the White House in the last days of the Clinton administration.
Holder said he never really thought Rich would be given a pardon because he was a fugitive from justice. Yes, but this was a billionaire fugitive whose ex-wife was a big giver to Democratic causes.
The New York Times noted, "the hearings produced information -- unproven but disturbing -- suggesting that Clinton may have discussed the pardon with a Democratic fund-raiser and was aware of objections to the pardon by White House lawyers."
It is incredible that the pardon was granted, but Clinton's behavior has been incredible in so many ways that this is only the last in a long string of outrages. The fact that Clinton acted on the pardon just as he was leaving office -- when the protests would come too late to hurt him-- makes this abuse of the pardon power even more deplorable.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editor
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
