Strong opposition to HB 345 - letter to editor

Strong opposition to

HB 345 - letter to editor

Government Operations

Send a letter to the editor! Remember, your letter doesn't need to be a masterpiece of perfection! Just be brief and to-the-point, be friendly, and stick to the point! Mahalo for taking action! Fair Elections are good for the public! Hawaii has a history of people who have connections to money taking advantage of people who don't have connections to money. Fair Elections levels the playing field and gives everyday citizens a chance to try and qualify for public funds. As long as the candidate has good ideas and is trusted by people in their community, they have a good chance at qualifying for full public funding.

Monday, March 9, 2009 04:14 PM

To be fiscally responsible, and to help get big money out of politics, Big Island legislators should support Act 244 - the Big Island Fair Elections Act.

Money Is Not An Issue:

-- The Big Island pilot program cannot run unless there is $3.5 million already in the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund

-- Voters in the 1978 Consitutional Convention set up the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund to provide public funds for campaigns. The partial public funding program does not provide a competitive amount of money and people are not using it. As a result, people are not checking of the $3 to donate to the fund.

--Given the economic situation, the responsible thing to do would be to enact Act 244 so that people start using the public funding program again. When taxpayers see that the public funding program is working, they will be more willing to donate $3 to the election fund again. Delaying the Fair Elections Act is fiscally irresponsible right now.

--The Fair Elections program has a built-in cap for the amount of money it can draw from the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund. Right now, it can only draw $150,000 per year, or $300,000 every two years. For the amount of money that will be gained by enacting Fair Elections, this is the deal of the century.
Constitutionality is Not an Issue:

-- For the one court decision cited by the Campaign Spending Commission, ther are four other court decisions that found the exact opposite. These four court cases upheld the constitutionality of "equalizing funds" -- the funds that make sure Fair Elections candidates remain competitive with candidates who are privately funded. One of these court cases was the North Carolina 4th circuit case Duke v Leake

--The "constitutionality" issue is a PR campaign that was started by the Goldwater Institute and the Center for Competitive Politics -- think tanks funded by large corporate interests. These organizations oppose Fair Elections because it threatens the ability of chain stores and huge conglomerates to continue to dominate public policy.

--The Campaign Legal Center, on the other hand, finds that the constitutionality of Fair Elections remains as sound as ever.

--Recently, corporate advocates filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case on the constitutionality of equalizing funds, and that appeal was denied.