CHRISTMAS may be coming, but the akamai among us aren't dreaming of sugar plums. They are figuring out what to do when the Con Con comes. How to reform
campaign spendingThe bright political types are already thinking about what to change and what to keep in the state's supreme document.
Here is a suggestion that would be the biggest Christmas gift we could give to the morals of this community: Do something about the legalized bribery we now engage in under the name of campaign spending.
If and when the Con Con comes, one way to measure its success is in how it deals with Hawaii's campaign spending laws.
Our laws force those running for office to start their careers of public service by figuring how to get around the laws of the state. They must gather up money in amounts large enough to make a difference, but not so large that they go over the spending ceiling. All sorts of dodges are employed.
The problem is that the state cannot simply ban giving money completely because the donations are covered as free speech. But here's an idea that makes sense and makes me jealous, too.
I'm jealous because I didn't think of it and I know it would work because I ran it by a couple of players in both city and state politics who were shocked at both its elegant simplicity and potential to cause havoc to politics in Hawaii.
The idea comes from Jerry Levinson, who runs the Learning Center at Windward Community College. He got it from the way messages can be sent anonymously on the Internet.
It is analogous to an "anonymous remailer," which is a computer that automatically removes your address and forwards it to a recipient with no return address.
Imagine if an anonymous remailer handled campaign contributions.
"Suppose Dwayne Smythers wants to donate $10,000 to the campaign of Jack Armstrong. He writes a check made out to the remailer and sends it off with a cover letter explaining to whose campaign it should go. The check has nothing on it to connect it to the campaign. That information is in the letter," Levinson explained.
The money is then sent from the remailer to the candidate. The identity is kept secret. The candidate gets the money, the contributor gets to help further the political process and no one can claim that candidates or contributors are trading favors for bucks.
Why?
Architects' and engineers' contributions would go into the pot with community groups, labor unions, banks, hospitals and others interested in the political process.
THE "anonymous remailer" would issue checks to the specified candidates, but candidates would not know where the money came from. Contributors could, of course, claim they sent big bucks to a certain candidate, but they would have no proof.
Within a few campaign cycles the vested interests, faced with donating to blind trusts, would lose interest. They would give up trying to buy their influence and actually be forced to earn it on merit.
Politicians, after months of trying to figure out who actually sent them money and who just claimed to have given, would have to trust their own instincts. Decisions would be made on a basis other than money.
Big bucks would no longer influence the Legislature. Common sense would rise.
It is so simple, it is guaranteed to never happen.
