Business Takes a Beating in Silence

George R. Ariyoshi

To do good and also do well by itself, the business community should become a knowledgeable participant in the reform of financing election campaigns.

As it is, the business world tends to keep its head down, pay the ever-rising cost of campaigns and absorb much of the suspicion that the public sphere is being corrupted. Unfortunately, another Legislature has come and gone without enacting the most pertinent reforms. We are now into another campaign that inevitably will result in a high level of spending.

With many others, I have contended repeatedly that nothing so erodes public confidence in government quite like today's system of campaign finance. When I first ran for office, I printed posters and banners along with cards and small, simple brochures that I and my helpers handed out. I ran a two-column-by-two-inch newspaper ad before and after each election. Without ever having a fund-raiser or a campaign finance committee, I served in the Legislature for 16 years. In contrast to today's small, one-member districts, my original House district covered more than half of Oahu.

When I ran for lieutenant governor in 1970, I winced at the cost of campaigning statewide. During the time I served in that office as chief elections officer, the legislature enacted limits on how much candidates for office could spend. The amount allowed for a campaign for governor was small by today's standards, and I was elected to the governorship while this law was in effect.

Subsequently this law - limiting spending - was declared an unconstitutional infringement of free expression. Under the pressure of competition and the rising costs of mass media, expenditures went up and up. By the 2002 election, spending by all gubernatorial candidates in Hawaii was over $11 million. Routinely, House campaigns exceed $50,000 and Senate campaigns exceed $100,000. I'm told incumbent legislators are so busy having fund-raisers that a calendar circulates informally at the Capitol to avoid double-booking a particular date.

Judging from the early start of television campaigning, this year's mayoral campaign will be extremely expensive and businesses, as usual, will pay much of the cost. While the public often thinks of business as securing special access, most businessmen think of themselves as being subjected to a hidden tax. Many business contributors are passive participants. However, the degree of calculation that goes into business and industry contributions is obvious to anyone who wants to research campaign reports. For example, a given industry might routinely give a few hundred dollars to ordinary House members, and $2,000 to a well-placed chairperson.

Much of the current reform agenda centers on attempting to ban government contractors from making contributions, and on trying to make the concept of public financing actually work effectively. Proposals for the latter revolve around giving public money to those candidates who agree to stay within certain limits.

The recurring problem I see is that, at crucial moments, such as this fall's presidential election, the tradeoff for public financing breaks down, with both major parties abandoning the process in favor of raising all the money they can. For that reason, I

continue to favor setting limits on spending, with or without government financing - despite the setbacks this idea has been dealt in court. My view is that the time will come when courts recognize that the public's interest in a level playing field outweighs the First Amendment issue. Therefore, I feel we should keep trying for a truly rational system.

For its part, business would do well to actively search for answers along with other elements of the community. In the long run, business will be much better off with real reform, rather than a perpetuation of the status quo.