Thursday, June 25, 2009
Clean elections and an end to corporate control are still the goals
by Larry Geller
Ian Lind and I differ on what position advocates for clean elections should take on campaign spending limits. He wrote today, in his article on the decision in Tavares v. Wong:
Supporters of campaign reform opposed a bill introduced in the 2009 legislative session that would have allowed corporations to give no more than $25,000 in total to all candidates combined. By rejecting that measure, reformers now face the prospect of the upcoming 2010 election without any limits on corporate money in place.
The decision was not unexpected. Regardless, advocates discussed the case and its effect on possible approaches during this past legislative session as the House in particular squirmed and contrived to blow corporate contribution limits sky high through legislation.
The right thing to do, I believe, is to keep pushing for a total ban. Other states have banned or severely limited corporate contributions, why not Hawaii?
How could advocates support a $25,000 or $50,000 limit one year and go back the next asking for a total ban? The Tavares v. Wong case had nothing to do with the goals that have been in place for years and years.
More than that, as I was contemplating the passing earlier this week of Prof. Ira Rohter, I realized that for as long as I knew him, and for years and years before that, Rohter was an uncompromising voice for clean elections and an end to corporate bribery of lawmakers. You can’t have half-clean elections any more than health care for half the population or democracy only for those with money. He was fighting for voters to control their own government way before this particular case. We will carry on his fight.
While it would have been nice if the court had decided differently, they have not said that corporate contributions should continue, only that Wong was wrong in her interpretation of the law.
Good try, Wong, but I don’t think advocates regret demanding an end to bribery and pay-for-play, and for sure, we will keep at it until we achieve our goals.
Update: Not everyone reads blog comments. This one, I felt, is worth elevating. By Anonymous:
I'm glad Barbara Wong challenged the interpretation out of a conviction that campaign contributions should be transparent.
The whole scenario, to me, is interesting...
This issue of limiting corporate contributions that flow from treasuries (corporations can still give in lots of other ways) has a long history in Hawaii.
At one time, legislators, out of good conscience, decided to put in place a $1,000 limit of on corporate contributions. That limit was later lifted, but then the law passed in 2005 got us into this situation where the language of the $1,000 ban was vague and needed interpretation from the court.
Legislators had the opportunity to clarify the language on the $1,000 limit, but they couldn't come to a compromise: some legislators wanted a total ban, but most wanted to set the cap at some higher amount like $50,000, or even allow unlimited amounts.
Meanwhile, citizen advocate groups, who have always called for a total ban, or to at the very maximum, for a clarificatiion to cap the corporate contributions at $1,000, of course were not going to say "oh, sure, let's settle for $25,000 because legislators are telling us that's the best they can do."
The truth of the matter is that citizen advocates had a certain amount of leverage on the legislators on this issue, which left the legislators with two choices:
1. clarify the law, and set it at a $1,000 or a ban (consistent with
earlier precedents with the law in Hawaii), or2. leave it up to the courts, creating a likely scenario that corporations
would be able to donate unlimited amounts.Further, the truth of the story is that legislators chose option "2" and are now shirking responsibility and blaming citizen advocate groups for not playing insider politics by striking a compromise at "$25,000".
This is what's interesting -- almost laughable -- to me. Citizen advocate groups are catching blame for decisions made in an arena like this.
Ultimately, unless you're in the neo-conservate economic camp, most people agree that private money has a corrosive effect on the lawmaking process: it stifles innovation, aggregates power, and shuts ordinary people out of the process.
If anybody is to blame, I would say it's the legislators who wanted to set the cap at $50,000 or at unlimited amounts.
These folks are the real reason we're in the situation we're in. If they would have agreed to clarify the language at $1,000 or at a total ban, we would have been on our way to improving democratic principles that we like to preach about.
However, instead of blaming these folks, legislators are putting the blame on citizen advocate groups.
If your kids told you to quit smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, and you told them they had two options: 1/2 a pack, or no limit at all, and the children said "neither one, you should quit altogether", would you blame your kids for your inability to quit smoking?
I'm glad Barbara Wong challenged the interpretation out of a conviction that campaign contributions should be transparent.
The whole scenario, to me, is interesting...
This issue of limiting corporate contributions that flow from treasuries (corporations can still give in lots of other ways) has a long history in Hawaii.
At one time, legislators, out of good conscience, decided to put in place a $1,000 limit of on corporate contributions. That limit was later lifted, but then the law passed in 2005 got us into this situation where the language of the $1,000 ban was vague and needed interpretation from the court.
Legislators had the opportunity to clarify the language on the $1,000 limit, but they couldn't come to a compromise: some legislators wanted a total ban, but most wanted to set the cap at some higher amount like $50,000, or even allow unlimited amounts.
Meanwhile, citizen advocate groups, who have always called for a total ban, or to at the very maximum, for a clarificatiion to cap the corporate contributions at $1,000, of course were not going to say "oh, sure, let's settle for $25,000 because legislators are telling us that's the best they can do."
The truth of the matter is that citizen advocates had a certain amount of leverage on the legislators on this issue, which left the legislators with two choices:
1. clarify the law, and set it at a $1,000 or a ban (consistent with
earlier precedents with the law in Hawaii), or
2. leave it up to the courts, creating a likely scenario that corporations
would be able to donate unlimited amounts.
Further, the truth of the story is that legislators chose option "2" and are now shirking responsibility and blaming citizen advocate groups for not playing insider politics by striking a compromise at "$25,000".
This is what's interesting -- almost laughable -- to me. Citizen advocate groups are catching blame for decisions made in an arena like this.
Ultimately, unless you're in the neo-conservate economic camp, most people agree that private money has a corrosive effect on the lawmaking process: it stifles innovation, aggregates power, and shuts ordinary people out of the process.
If anybody is to blame, I would say it's the legislators who wanted to set the cap at $50,000 or at unlimited amounts.
These folks are the real reason we're in the situation we're in. If they would have agreed to clarify the language at $1,000 or at a total ban, we would have been on our way to improving democratic principles that we like to preach about.
However, instead of blaming these folks, legislators are putting the blame on citizen advocate groups.
If your kids told you to quit smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, and you told them they had two options: 1/2 a pack, or no limit at all, and the children said "neither one, you should quit altogether", would you blame your kids for your inability to quit smoking?
----
: June 26, 2009 at 11:55:00 AM HST 
As I said to Ian today, I look at it differently. As one who tried to kill the bill, I like where we are now. The $25,000 would have kept the bill alive and moved it out of committee, subject to changes in conference or in other committees including the lifting of all limits that was proposed. one point. And it would have been “permanent” in respect to getting a bill this coming session because they would say it was already dealt with last year.
I thought it was important to killed the whole bill early in the session stopping any bill from being enacted last year. If it were left it “alive” at that point anything could have happened in the name of “clarifying” what the law said. We succeeded in killing the bill knowing the worst that would happen is we would wind up with the limits the same as for individuals.
Now this next session we come in with the only realistic choices being between the status quo or to lower or even eliminate corporate donations entirely. No one is going to introduce or outwardly support a bill designed to raises the limits- it would be politically suicidal. The only way they could have accomplished that was to take a “reform” bill and slip something by in the “confusion” of last year’s ambiguity.
I like our chances when the choice is between eliminating corporate money and allowing it, all without having to worry (as much) about some political ploy to actually raise the limits in the name of eliminating ambiguity in the current law. Plus waiting a year has no real effect since there’s no election this year.
The contributions seem to be already flowing, even before this ruling, based on the initial court opinion. The limits are per election cycle, so the money can flow right now. Unless I'm missing something.
<< Home
Post a Comment
Requiring those Captcha codes at least temporarily, in the hopes that it quells the flood of comment spam I've been receiving.