In an election year, it’s not enough just to know the
candidates. Voters should also pay attention to campaign spending laws and attempts to reform the system.

This applies to both local and national elections, where millions of dollars in “hard” and “soft” money change hands to further political agendas.

Political party spending surpassed candidate spending in the 2000 presidential general election. Spending by party committees on television reached $163 million in 2000 — more than $81 million of which was for the presidential election alone.

On March 27, 2002 President Bush signed into law the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,” which was initially called the McCain–Feingold Bill. According to the president, the bill will “prevent unions and corporations from making unregulated, soft money contributions.”

Bush also said the bill will raise the limit on campaign donations from individuals in support of their candidate, and it will bring about immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions.

“Soft money” is donations to political parties, exempt from contribution and source limitations. However, soft money is not to be used for direct promotion of any candidate.
Dr. Craig B. Holman, se-nior policy analyst for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, School of Law, outlined the 2000 spending situation.

“Soft money is supposed to be used for party-building activities, such as voter registration drives and strengthening the image and infrastructure of party organizations.”
Holman’s main theory is that all media ads would support policies which as election day grew closer, were synonymous with the candidate. This technique of electioneering is the most effective manner in which soft money can be used to impact elections.

The Brennan Center research concluded that “at least 98.5 percent of all political advertising in 2000 was sponsored by political parties, corporations, unions, and other major national organizations.”

Such information suggests what for many people is common knowledge: special interest groups are the most influential voice in political campaigns.

In an attempt to avoid the abuse of special interest contributions altogether, some states and cities are pushing for clean money (money not derived from special interest groups) campaign finance reform.

In Hawai’i, two organizations are pushing for such legislation: Hawai’i Elections Project (HEP) and Hawai’i Clean Elections (HI.Clean).

After a couple years of state-sanctioned research, the two organizations proposed their first bill in 2000, suggesting the clean money be made available for the 2002 Honolulu City Council elections. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives, it did not pass in the Senate.

In 2001 and 2002, similar bills have been passed by the House, only to be defeated by the Senate either by refusal to consider or indefinitely sending it to committee.
In 2003, hoping the fourth time to be the charm, the House sent a bill making public funding permanent for House elections.

The bill was held up in the Senate Transportation, Military Affairs and Government Operations Committee, even though the Senate Judiciary Committee supported it.
Hawai‘i’s Campaign

Spending Commission functions as an election watchdog and has handed out nearly $1 million in fines for illegal contributions.

This debate concerning campaign finance reform on both a national and local level will not be resolved with any quick solution. The issues raised are complicated and require the best in the political system’s attention.