Lawmakers in new move to line their pockets
By David Shapiro
You know the Legislature is back in session when Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu is busy at work priming the already fat campaign chests of himself and his fellow legislators.
Last year, an outcry from clean elections groups forced the Judiciary chairman to back off a scheme to abolish limits on corporate donations to political action committees that support lawmakers' campaigns.
But Karamatsu and his colleagues won out in the end when the courts stuck down the limits, leaving corporations and labor unions to dominate elections while ordinary citizens, who can donate $1,000 per election, have barely a whisper.
This year, less than two weeks into the session, Karamatsu has already pushed a bill through the Judiciary Committee to ease restrictions on campaign donations to candidates and political parties by government contractors — opening the door anew to the pay-to-play ethic that has fed charges of bribery and corruption in local government contracting.
HB2249 passed the Judiciary Committee by a 9 to 1 vote with only Rep. Della Au Belatti objecting, and could come up for a floor vote as early as this week despite opposition from the state Campaign Spending Commission, Common Cause Hawai'i and Americans for Democratic Action. Nobody testified in favor of the measure.
"This change would open the way to allegations or the reality of corruption and further decrease the confidence the public has in state government," said Barbara Polk of ADA. "The public needs to know that government contracts are not awarded on a quid pro quo basis, depending on contractors contributions to candidates or parties."
Nikki Love of Common Cause said, "The existing law is the result of a 'pay to play' reform enacted in 2005 in response to public concern about ties between contracts and political contributions. The existing law is clear and simple. The question now is: Why change this law? We believe that there is already enough money in politics."
Attacks on campaign spending limits are usually piously tied to the free-speech rights of special interests.
But Karamatsu, who may run for lieutenant governor, has tied it to legislators' rights to have more corporate money — and for uses other than campaigning, such as making charitable contributions out of their campaign funds instead of out of their own pockets like everybody else.
He chastised critics last year that "costs have gone up extraordinarily ... you're tying our hands on what we can do here."
Volcanic Ash
February 1st, 2010 at 10:44 am
So many issues in one article. The court decision balanced the field, at least now corps can invest just as unions have been doing so.
Aloha,
Keahi
February 1st, 2010 at 11:31 am
I like Keahi use of the term "invest." Yep, under our current campaign spending system, moneyed interests invest in the careers of politicians.
A democracy operates according to the principle, "one man (sic), one vote." The market operates according to "one dollar, one vote." For years we have operated under a hybrid system. The Supreme Court ruling now sweeps away all hypocrisy and confusion. No more illusions about democracy. Now, more than ever, politicians will be "bought and paid for." All in the name of "Free Speech" for our friends, neighbors and fellow citizens, the corporate "persons."
Perhaps as a concession to "Truth in Packaging," we should adopt the NASCAR system. Have the legislators wear white jumpsuits studded with the logos of their corporate sponsors.
Or, if corporations are now to possess the full array of political rights accorded any other "person," perhaps the corporations themselves will be elected to office outright. Perhaps an android can be seated which is loaded with an artificial intelligence reflecting the values and interests of the elected corporation? The humanoid form would be for the benefit of those of us with minds to small to grasp that corporations are truly "persons."
February 1st, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Love the NASCAR analogy. That should provide inspiration to a graphic artist when the election gets closer.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Good thing Mufi is big, 'cause he's gonna need a lot of space on that jumpsuit to fit all the subcontractors in. "I'd like to thank the team at Parsons that made this win possible..."
Funny thing is, Jon Riki is still gonna be pulling his radio flyer around looking for a sponsor. Might as well sell Zippy's chili.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
May be contributors should get "naming rights" like Stadiums and Arenas -- i.e., the "HMSA" Rep. ____________, the "A&B" Sen. ___________, or, if a project is what needs publicity, the "Molokai-Lanai-Maui Cable" Lt. Gov. ___________.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
freedom of speech.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I like the "naming rights" idea. All should be prefaced with "Bought by _________________________."
February 5th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
in the end,wether a person donates a $ 100 or $ 1,000,000 he or she only has one vote.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I think Kolea has spawned some fabulous ideas. Love the idea that politicians cd be required to display their sponsors' logos. Right now, my mom just loves her rep because of his cheesy little cookbook. I say give those a rest and have those elected show their true colors. Fly the flags of those who bought you.
Oh yes. I think ShaftAlley has missed the point. Consider this: one vote is what WE get. The voters, and the taxpayers. Corporations & other deep pockets get LOTS of access to those elected. And, if the timing is right, a doorway magically appears between the departing elected person's office and their new employer: the old million dollar donor!
Signed,
Missing.