Small Business News
April 2005 | Online Edition
Clean Election Money Only Hurts Taxpayers
By Bob Watada, Director,
State Campaign Spending Commission
Rep. Brian Schatz, D-Makiki, blames the current system of campaign finance for the “growing cynicism” that “threatens the basic foundation of our democracy”. He believes that campaigns should be 100 percent funded by the taxpayer. There is another viewpoint.
Hawaii is already one of the most generous states in providing taxpayer assistance to candidates. Hawaii law, mandated by the Hawaii State Constitution, already provides for partial public funding of candidates for all state and local offices. Contributors are allowed to take a tax deduction for contributions to publicly funded candidates. Hawaii is the only state with such taxpayer support for candidates.
It makes no rational sense to establish another almost identical program for a few candidates that will cost the taxpayers more than double the current administrative cost in addition to millions of taxpayer dollars going to candidates. And, paraded as campaign spending reform? This is more shibai.
If you want more taxpayer monies to go to candidates, it makes a lot of sense to merely amend the current law. But, of course, that doesn’t have the appeal of saying: do it like they do it in Maine and Arizona.
I do oppose the lack of candor and honesty in perpetuating this hoax on the voters.
In truth, elected officials would love to have the taxpayer pay for their campaigns, because it simply means that as candidates, they no longer will have to put their hands out for contributions. What a novel idea, and we can call it the Clean Election.
They cloud their glee by pointing to Maine and Arizona.
They say more people will run for office. That is simply not borne out by the numbers. In Hawaii, increasing public funds has increased participation by the candidates, but has not increased the number of people running. In Maine, more people are not running for public office with the “clean elections”. Not many people will give up a job paying a certain income for the uncertain prospect of $32,000 and public office. In fact, the number of people running each election is probably more closely correlated to the unemployment rate.
Proponents of this faux campaign finance reform claim that special interest ties to elected officials will be cut. This simply defies logic. Special interests and their sway on public policy is extremely complex, but mostly centered on the decision makers while in office. In a campaign, special interests tend to give contributions to both sides to cover their bets, or, concentrate campaign help on certain friends.
The so-called special interests love the Maine program. Before, they were hassled by four or five candidates for contributions to the same office. Now, they are not hassled to give to any candidates, thanks to the taxpayer. The special interest funds are now directed to legislative PACS that are not regulated and not required to disclose who they got the money from.
The real election takes place in selecting officers and chairs for the key committees after they are elected by the taxpayers. This is all done in secrecy. The special interests then descend on the already elected official to influence policy decisions and get their share from the public trough. Did Representative Schatz forget to tell you that lawmakers have exempted themselves from the ethics laws and are not required to declare a conflict of interest?
They cloud their glee by pointing to Maine and Arizona.
For a number of years, the House has resisted enacting legislation to require electronic filing for themselves, which would make their contributions and expenditures transparent to the voters. They have resisted attempts to close contribution loopholes from their favorite friends. Now, they want the taxpayer to finance their campaigns so the voters can be assured of not knowing who is behind the decisions of elected officials in the backrooms of the legislature.
Representative Schatz and the clean election proponents want you to believe that this will be the end of political corruption. Political corruption takes place when “corrupt” politicians illegally line their pockets and friends pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Whether candidates are 100 % publicly funded or not, political corruption will continue. Put more taxpayer money out there, and unregulated, you will see real political corruption.
In the past election some incumbents “ran scared” because some “special interests” were able to heavily finance some candidates. The incumbents want to be assured that they will never be outspent by their opponents. The challenged incumbent just waits until their opponent and friends spend as much or more than they do and within 48 hours, taxpayer funds have to be disbursed to the challenged incumbent on a dollar for dollar basis to keep up with the opponent.
There are very few incumbent representatives that would turn down a minimum of $32,000 for the primary election and $32,000 for the general election, gratis, thanks to the taxpayer—a pay raise in the name of reform! Never mind that the current average cost of a House race for both primary and general elections is less than $30,000. Never mind that Massachusetts had a clean election program like Maine and the legislature repealed the law because the taxpayers did not want to pay candidates; and the clean election program after one election was deemed to be a “total disaster”.
By the way Rep. Schatz fails to tell you that he was once paid by the Clean Elections organization. Growing cynicism?
Bob Watada is the executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission. He can be reached via email at robert.y.watada@hawaii.gov
|
