SITE NAVIGATION

Letters to the Editor

'Clean elections' better for public's interest
Honolulu Star Bulletin
Feb 15, 2007

We don't need to tweak campaign donation laws, we need to flat-out eliminate private donations to campaigns. Unless we do, our officials will never be free to act solely for public benefit -- they'll make decisions to benefit their wealthy campaign contributors. Under current practice, there's no incentive for legislators to change the way they get campaign money.

This is the single most important legislative reform we can undertake. Let's follow the lead of Maine and Arizona by implementing "clean elections" (House Bill 661 and Senate Bill 1068), where candidates can run a competitive campaign without accepting any special interest money.

HB 661 and SB 1068 have passed unanimously out of the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee!

Now it's up to the House Finance Committee and Senate Ways and Means Committee to do the right thing.

Paul McKimmy
Honolulu

-###-

CLEAN ELECTIONS: PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEM MUST BE IMPROVED
HONOLULU ADVERTISER
Nov. 30, 2006

Your Nov. 20 editorial mentioned clean (publicly funded) elections as a remedy for the oceans of money that favor-seekers pour into campaigns.

The 110th U.S. Congress will include 106 members who support public funding of congressional campaigns.

In Hawai'i, all 76 of our representatives and senators were asked to sign a Voters First Pledge to put ordinary voters before lobbyists and special interests. Only eight signed: Sens. Les Ihara and Suzanne Chun Oakland; and Reps. Josh Green, Joe Bertram, Della Au Belatti, Sylvia Luke, Corinne Ching, Karen Awana, Cynthia Thielen and Tommy Waters.

Business donations to one state Senate campaign here can easily top $100,000.

It's high time we beefed up Hawai'i's measly 26-year-old partial public funding system so people can afford to run without taking money from rich donors who only want favors. Many of our representatives will change the system that elected them only if they hear from constituents.

With each election, Clean Elections gains momentum at the city, state and national level. Hawai'i's campaigns need to join in.

Either the public buys the elections, or special interests will continue to.

Brodie Lockard
Treasurer, Hawai'i Clean Elections

-###-

CAMPAIGN REFORM: IT'S TIME TO SUPPORT PUBLIC ELECTION FUNDING
HONOLULU ADVERTISER
Nov. 29, 2006

Johnny Brannon's Nov. 29 article on campaign funding makes clear that partial public funding systems no longer work. The cost of an election campaign has far exceeded what these programs can provide, and candidates are still forced to take large contributions from favor-seeking special interests.

It is time for the state to enact a system of voluntary full public funding for campaigns that will keep participants competitive in their races. Such programs have been successful for several years in Maine and Arizona. Many more candidates get involved in races, so-called "fringe" candidates do not drain the funding pool and the states are not going broke.

Moreover, as Brannon's article makes clear, there is plenty of money in the current Hawai'i fund to support a public funding pilot program in 2008. Legislators should not try to use cost as an excuse to get out of enacting this badly needed legislation.

Will Best
Honolulu

-###-

BROKEN DEMOCRACY: CAMPAIGN REFORM A CRITICAL NEED IN ISLES
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
Nov. 26, 2006

I found the article "Campaigns shun public fund" by Johnny Brannon (Advertiser, Nov. 20) quite interesting. If the Campaign Spending Commission's director, Barbara Wong, needs public support to win approval for an overhaul of the campaign finance system, she has my vote.

In a state where a low percentage of the registered voters vote, we need to take a hard look at campaign reform. When we are spending $3 billion a week to establish democracy in Iraq and the voters in our very own democracy don't bother to vote, something is seriously flawed.

We need to either change the spending caps for candidates who receive public funding or require that all candidates run on public funding. That would level the playing field and allow those individuals who are interested in pursuing public office the opportunity to do so without going into bankruptcy.

Clean elections, would allow politicians to accomplish some meaningful legislative activity instead of constantly having to attend fundraisers and be beholden to special interests. When the citizens of this country have lost interest and feel they will not be heard over the lobbyists, special interest groups and corporations, then we have a broken democracy.

Maybe we should begin to fix our own democracy before we start invading other countries to establish it.

Deborah A. Luckett
Honolulu

-###-

Public election money levels the field
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Nov. 07, 2006

One of us is the retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company who has contributed generously to political campaigns. The other is a single mother, a former waitress, and current legislator from Maine. It wouldn't seem as if we have much in common, but we are both passionate about the need for publicly financed elections.

In 2004, the cost of winning a U.S. Senate seat averaged more than $7 million; the price of a House seat was more than $1 million. Candidates spend huge amounts of time calling affluent donors (like one of the authors of this essay) or special-interest groups. The time spent "dialing for dollars" is time candidates don't spend talking to ordinary constituents. Most candidates hate this trade-off, but it is one they have to make to win.

Fortunately, that's not the way the system works in Maine, where one of us has successfully run three races for the Legislature and is campaigning again this year. As a waitress and part-time college student, in that first election there were no deep pockets to draw on, or even an idea of how to find them. All that candidate Simpson had were a lot of neighbors and friends. They provide many of the $5 contributions that Maine's Clean Elections program requires to qualify for public funding to run her campaigns. In exchange, she has agreed to abide by strict spending limits and not raise any more private money. Under the law, if a privately funded candidate outspends a publicly funded one, more funds are given to the Clean Elections candidate to ensure a level playing field.

By taking much of the private money out of politics, Maine took the focus off big donors and shifted it to all voters. This means that people like Edgar Bronfman are constituents like everybody else, with an idea to share or a problem that needs solving. The volume of people's voices is not dependent on the size of their wallets. In Maine, a waitress and a millionaire may shop at different stores and stand on different sides of the counter, but when it comes to our elected officials, they are equals.

Clean Elections is a practical, proven reform that has been in place in Maine and Arizona since 2000 and for judicial races in North Carolina since 2004. Five other states, including New Jersey, and two cities have adopted it for all or some of their races. Getting Clean Elections in place can be tough, since the lawmakers often prefer to deal with the fund-raising devil they know. In Maine and Arizona, voters approved these systems via initiative. However, scandal can provide a push.

Last year, after months of revelations of pay-to-play schemes in Connecticut surrounding former Gov. John Rowland, the current Republican governor and Democratic legislature approved Clean Elections for statewide and legislative offices. This marked the first time that state politicians had approved such a system for their races.

With the wave of scandals surrounding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the will is there to take up public financing of elections at the federal level. U.S. Reps. John Tierney (D., Mass.) and Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) are lead sponsors of legislation that would establish public financing of elections for House races. A similar bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate soon.

Clean Elections levels the playing field so that a CEO and a waitress are on equal footing. In a country built on the value of one person, one vote, that makes a lot of sense.

Edgar Bronfman Sr. is the former CEO of Seagram's Co.
Deborah L. Simpson is a Democratic state representative in Maine

-###-

CLEAN ELECTIONS MOVIE MIRRORS REALITY OF LOBBYISTS' INFLUENCE
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
October 28, 2006

"Man of the Year" just came out. While the movie wasn't the greatest, I did enjoy the political aspects of the movie.

What Robin Williams' character (Dobbs) did was explain how things usually worked politically. Candidates get money for campaigns from lobbyists, and if elected, they owe favors to lobbyists, which affects their policymaking. This is true in the real world as much as it is in that movie.

Dobbs' points about education not improving, and quality of life being poor for some people, are because the people in office don't seem to care about social issues, because they're too busy taking care of the special interest groups who paid for their campaigns.

So what's the point? There needs to be change. People in office have to be accountable, and they have to be responsible for the welfare of their constituents.

So how does this change happen? There's a bill that's going to be introduced in the 2007 Legislative session called the "Clean Elections" bill. The idea is to take private money out of politics and to let the people in office work without any obligations to companies and lobbyists.

John Cole
Ewa Beach

-###-

Special interests don't get to vote
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
March 27, 2006

I admire someone who's good at his job, and Tim Lyons, president of The Legislative Center and writer of "'Special' interests are constituents, too" is on top of his field. He's an accomplished lobbyist, representing the interests of clients, including major contractors, a tourist coalition, Anheuser-Busch and the Hawaii Pest Control Association, for which he is listed as agent, director and executive director. Lyons oversees an awesome amount of money that goes each year to lawmakers.

But I voted for the lawmakers who represent ME. Anheuser-Busch doesn't vote, nor do pest-control associations, contracting firms or the other special interests who pay Lyons for his expertise. I wonder if my state representative will see me if I walk in without a checkbook? Or does Lyons get priority because of the special interest money he represents?

It's for this reason that the Voter Owned Election movement is gaining momentum in Hawaii. I'm proud to be on the side of democracy instead of special interests. Special interest money corrupts the democratic process. It's that simple.

Larry Geller
Honolulu

-###-

WE'RE PAYING TOO MUCH
GAS CAP LAW MUST BE TOUGHENED
HONOLULU ADVERTISER
March 07, 2006

The battle over Hawai'i's gas cap is proving to be a great reason to pass a Voter Owned Elections law. It would be naive to think that contributions paid by or expected from the oil industry are not a factor in lawmakers' decision-making on this controversial issue.

Caught in the middle are all of us who have shelled out more for gasoline than we should have and who are faced with the prospect of paying even more should the law be repealed. The House seems bent on repealing the law, the first in the nation, despite testimony by the state Public Utilities Commission that in using its discretion, it set prices as high as it could rather than as low as possible. You'd think that the House might work on that core problem instead of taking away what protection consumers have had.

What could be fueling this flight from logic?

Certainly, it's fair to suspect that oil industry money might be involved. In fact, in the 2004 election cycle, the industry pumped up the campaign funds of Hawai'i lawmakers by a whopping $150,822, according to followthemoney.org. This includes $46,250 from Chevron/Texaco, $36,097 from Tesoro, a generous $25,000 additional from Albert D.K. Chee, director of Chev-ron/Texaco, and other large contributions from Interisland Petroleum, Aloha Petroleum, Maui Petroleum, or people associated with those companies.

Let's keep in mind that this huge payout to politicos has been more than recovered from the wallets of Hawai'i drivers and small-business owners who paid more for their gasoline than they would have if the gas cap had been administered to produce the lowest prices.

In other words, we all paid at the pump much more than we needed to, and part of the oil companies' windfall profits can be turned into campaign contributions. Looking over the data, a large portion of the money went to the campaigns of Republican candidates who eventually lost in the primary or the general election. Of course, there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans, but still, they did not get nearly as much per capita in the 2004 cycle from the oil lobby as did the oil-industry-friendly Republicans. Contributions have gone to a couple of legislators who indeed have voted for repeal.

This is an election year, and special-interest money will help top off candidates' war chests once again. Will there be a bigger payoff if a legislator votes to repeal the gas cap law?

Here's a chance for the average person to make a difference. We've all had extra money snatched from our wallets when we buy gas. The gas cap law should have been used to lower the price, not as a political tool by an administration that wants to get it repealed. Mark down what you pay next time you fill up, then call your state legislators about lowering that bill and remind them that you, not the oil companies, vote for them.

Larry Geller
Honolulu

-###-

SPECIAL INTERESTS: VOTER OWNED ELECTION BILL MUST BE APPROVED
HONOLULU ADVERTISER
February 27, 2006

For too long, special interests have called the shots in our federal, state and local governments.

Why is there an overflowing landfill in Wai'anae? Why are tobacco companies giving our state legislators thousands of dollars every year? Why is the Hilton allowed to plop in a development in Waikiki that breaks all kinds of code limits? Why is Honolulu the biggest city in the U.S. with no curbside recycling program? Why do our state legislators spend up to 70 percent of their time raising special-interest money instead of doing the public's business?

I'll tell you why: There is no Voter Owned Elections system.

By giving candidates the option of running as a publicly funded candidate, they will have the choice to sidestep all of that special-interest money that they now rely upon and focus instead on talking to people in their districts. Pass the Voter Owned Elections bill now.

Kory Payne
Field director, Voter Owned Hawai'i
Honolulu Star-Bulletin

-###-

'Voter-owned' elections offer better choices
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
February 26, 2006

I'd like to add my two cents in support of "voter owned" elections because it seems to be an important change that is needed for our system of government. We need more of the right kind of choices of candidates when we vote.

Demagogues who want to scapegoat the complex problems of our state and people will not easily sway our good representatives in government. Informed legislators have the time, resources, intelligence and strength to oppose these demagogues, whereas the typical citizen might not.

If we don't trust our legislators, then we want to elect new ones who can better represent our needs and the common good, rather than the needs of their biggest donors. That's the kind of choice that we want as voters. That's the kind of choice that is best, as issues in these times get more complex.

Alvin Toda Pearl City

-###-

Public funding is how elections should work
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
February 24, 2006

In its Feb. 13 editorial "Public funding shuts out special interests," the Star-Bulletin endorsed the idea of "clean elections." An example of this is Maine, where voters took control of their elections for less than $2 per eligible voter per year. What a bargain!

That is the best deal in politics. Accountability to citizens, not corporate special interests, for only $2 per voter per year. The taxpayers will save a lot of money and legislators will have much more time to listen to our concerns. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Randy Ching
Honolulu

-###-

Public funding might help Hawaiians
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
February 17, 2006

The Star-Bulletin's Feb. 12 "Gathering Place" column, "Publicly funded elections put voters back in charge," is extremely i nteresting because of its implications to minorities, especially Hawaiians. The absence of Hawaiians at the state Capitol is not only obvious, but discouraging as well. Running for state office has become so expensive and ethically questionable that many respected Hawaiians refuse to participate.

Public funding might restore some faith in the political process and offer more Hawaiians a chance to effect positive change in their communities.

Andy Smith Kaimuki

-###-

Public funding opens doors for candidates
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN
February 17, 2006

To all of us who feel powerless in the face of governmental corruption and a society gone horribly wrong: There is hope. "Clean" or "voter-owned" elections is the way to ensure that candidates like you and me, who have the good of the most at heart, can get elected ("Gathering Place," Feb. 12). Please demand that your representatives support this legislation. It is the wave of the future, and those who do not surf it will wipe out!

Nadine Newlight Haiku, Maui

-###-