[ OUR OPINION ]
Campaign spending reform
needs big changesGOVERNOR Lingle's veto of the campaign spending reform bill should send legislators back to the drafting table to construct a measure with a sound policy overhaul and no technical flaws. The governor's six-page explanation for her rejection of the bill focuses on unintended meanings and confusing language, but the next measure needs to be expanded in more profound ways.
THE ISSUE
Technical flaws were cited by Governor Lingle as a major reason for her veto of a campaign spending reform bill.
While many of the bill's shortcomings were technical -- leaving out the word "not" in one place, potentially creating a reverse effect -- they were serious nevertheless and, Lingle said, "make it abundantly clear that the bill is not clear in its application, not well thought out, and not fair." The governor should take up House Majority Leader Scott Saiki's invitation to work with legislators in rebuilding the measure in the next session.
Lingle has been lukewarm in the past about placing new limits on campaign contributions, contending that public disclosure -- "transparency," as she calls it -- is adequate. But her veto message does not question the validity of the bill's purpose "to restore the public's confidence in the integrity of the election process by reducing the influence of reliance on campaign contributions."
The bill sent to her desk was intended to ban contributions from out-of-state organizations but, because of bad wording, banned such contributions only from out-of-state groups with at least 10 Hawaii residents, the opposite of what was intended. The bill was meant to prohibit contributions from contractors who obtained nonbid government contracts. Lingle pointed out that it ended up allowing political contributions from company officials who gained contracts through a "more subjective" criteria that does not necessarily include price.
In the legislators' next try, they should make no distinction in the types of contracts. Much of the corruption that triggered the legislation involved companies that won contracts through the bidding process and then added to the gravy through cost overruns.
For example, an engineering company that gave $139,500 to Mayor Harris' 2000 reelection campaign submitted a winning bid of $932,000 for a consulting contract for the Central Oahu Regional Park, but cost overruns brought the total bill to $3.7 million. An architectural company whose employees and family members gave $19,500 to the Harris campaign won the bidding to plan and design improvements at Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve, but it eventually cost taxpayers more than four times the $450,000 winning bid.
Lingle is right in saying that legislators need to comb through the bill to correct technical and typographical errors, but more is required to produce true reform. Favoritism in awarding contracts should not be allowed in exchange for campaign contributions, and that should be made clear in broad terms affecting all government contractors.
