Limit campaign contributions to individuals living in election district ?

[Ken Conklin]

We all know that politicians seem to stay in office and get re-elected forever, even when they are obviously lousy. One reason incumbents keep getting re-elected is because they get huge campaign contributions from corporations and labor unions and individual fat-cats, so the elected official then feels obligated to do whatever they demand. An example is "pay to play" in the construction contracting business.

One cure is term limits. But term limits violate the right of the people to choose whomever they want. If the people really want to keep re-electing the same official, because they value his experience or positions on the issues, then that should be up to the people.

Maybe a better solution is for the Constitution to limit campaign contributions to individuals living in the election district. Prohibit campaign contributions from corporations, labor unions, and from individuals living outside the boundaries of the district served by the office-holder.

Thus a candidate for Governor could accept contributions only from individuals living in Hawaii; a candidate for the Windward seat on the Honolulu City Council could take contributions only from individuals who live in that Windward district.

This would be an appropriate issue for con-con, because no Legislature will ever voluntarily pass a law to prohibit corporations, labor unions, and outsiders from giving campaign contributions.

[Kaunaloa]

"But term limits violate the right of the people to choose whomever they want"

Ken, I don't see that as an inherent right; we set limits [age, residency, etc.] on our candidates, term limits imo is just another facet of that.

re: your main point of contirbution limts, as i've posted elsewhere i get leery of "campaign finance reform" laws 'cause then one morning you wake up and mccain-fiengold is a reality. however, i do see good potential for placing some parameters, such as locality restrictions, on contributions. one way to beat that of course is to have some designated sugar daddy living within each district but the cost/benefit of that is minimal I suppose ...

[Peter Kay]

I think that for as long as money helps one get elected, money will always find a way to the candidate. I can already think of many ways around that limitation.

[Kristi Sue-Ako]

Aloha Ken:
This ought to up the ante on the discussion. What is everyone's thoughts on public funding for campaigns? In an ideal political vacuum, this method will solve the special interest financing issue and "level" the playing field if it is established in a way that prevents frivolous spending of public funds. At the same time, there is an obvious potential for fraud, the fundamental question of whether or not this is an appropriate use of taxpayer $$, and an uneven benefit for incumbents/those with greater name recognition.

If there is any time for this type of a system to be established, it is at a forum where no incumbent lawmakers are making the suggestions. But I am not convinced if this is the best solution, so I thought I'd ask everyone else's thoughts!

[Peter Kay]

I think that perhaps public funding has the chance to work, but if you have the OPTION of going via public or private funding, it opens up a hole to which all kinds of money can flow through.

But perhaps we should look a little bit deeper. What's the underlying cause for special interests in the first place?

Could it be that there's too much government regulation, thereby forcing businesses & labor to protect their interests?

Show me an industry that's not heavily regulated and I'll show you a desert of special interests.

Perhaps if we figured out ways to deal with the root of the problem, we might find genuinely lasting solutions.

[Marty]

If term limits violate a person’s right to choose the candidate of their choice, why can't I vote for Gov Lingle again? If term limits can be applied to the Governor or the Honolulu City Council, they should be applied to the Legislature.

[Peter Kay]

I've always wondered how an elected official would respond to that. This same dual standard is in effect @ the federal level: presidents only get 2 terms while lawmakers can get re-elected ad infinitum.

[Auhea]

We should take it further and limit campaign contibutions to $5,000.00 per candidate with one free mailing in their districts. Does this seem fair enough?

[Dan L.]

The issues of money in campaigns are so thorny that I'm pessimistic about any system cleaning up the mess. Limitations seem merely to spark inventive ways to get around them.

The easiest way around a campaign contribution limit, whether by dollar amount, nature of the contributing entity, or location, is to set up a special-interest group which advertises on behalf of the candidate but has no official connection to his/her campaign. This is done regularly in federal elections. As a horrible example, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had no official connection to the Bush campaign, but there can be no doubt whose side they were on. Unless one is willing to take on the whole First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, there is no possible way to rein in such groups.

The answer to false speech is never less speech, but always more speech. I favor rules demanding public revelation of funding sources for all political groups. These rules should be by statue, not by constitutional mandate.

Furthermore, candidates should be forced to either accept or disavow statements made by groups on their behalf, even if the group has no official connection to the campaign. But this forcing should be done by the press and the public, never by law.

[Dan L.]

Public funding of campaigns

This has the potential to create the fairest system of campaigning imaginable. There are three -- maybe four -- serious pitfalls.

The first is the question we are seeing at the national level now: can the system work if it is voluntary? I think the answer is clearly "No." Any public-financing system must be mandatory, with all outside funding banned, if it is to do any serious good.

Second, how can a public financing system deal with special-interest groups formed to influence elections but at least technically separate from the official campaign? I do not see any way to control such groups without repealing the First Amendment.

Third, how much is the system going to cost? If all candidates are to get a fair shake, then lots of people are going to have access to campaign funds. And if the campaign is to be at all meaningful, there must be a significant amount of money available. This could wind up being a budget-busting program.

Fourth, and perhaps most serious, how do we prevent kooks and nutcases from using the public campaign funds to broadcast their craziness around the state at public expense? Henry Krajewski, a New Jersey pig farmer, used to take a few months off every four years and campaign for President all around the country. Mr. Krajewski had no particular platform that I recall, and he was a harmless joke during the late '40s through the early '60s. But if he had had access to public funds, he would have ceased to be harmless and would have become a serious nuisance. Non-serious candidates make public candidate forums unwieldy: a two-hour forum can let every candidate make a serious statement if there are five or so contestants; if there are 15 or so, nobody gets to do anything but make a bumper-sticker statement.

So how do you limit who gets the money? Do you depend on public opinion polls to determine who is serious? Is there some quasi-governmental agency which should make the determination? Or do you just give everyone their share, and let every legislative race get clogged up with people grinding their own axes? I don't see a good answer.

[dekepalo]

limit it to $3,000.00 for all. Level the field

[Daniel de Gracia II]

I think campaign contributions can be a double edged sword ... while I can't stand Ann Coulter, she had a really fascinating article entitled "How To Keep Reagan Out Of Office" in which she writes,

"The campaign-finance laws basically restrict choice political jobs ... to: [wealthy individuals] who can fund their own campaigns ... Celebrities and name-brand candidates - like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (which explains the nation's apparent adoration for Bushes and Clintons - they've got name recognition, a valuable commodity amidst totalitarian restrictions on free speech) ... [and] Mainstream media-anointed candidates, like John McCain and B. Hussein Obama."

Coulter cites how Reagan's now-famous 1964 "Rendezvous With Destiny" Goldwater endorsement speech which helped propel Reagan to later run for Governor was the result of a well-to-do sponsor organizing that dinner at a cost of $1,000/plate (equivalent $6,496.94 in 2008 dollars). There's no way we'd be able to charge that today with the cap on campaign contributions.

Although this is clearly a controversial opinion, I personally would be in favor of repealing campaign contribution limits altogether. I think that if someone wants to contribute $100,000 to your campaign to get you jump started, they ought to be able to do it ... but that's just my opinion.

[Kaunaloa]

my only concern with no limits is it GUARANTEES that anyone with 9 figures or more to their name will suddenly fancy themselves a politician for either state or federal office -- whether it's w. buffett, m. bloomberg, b. gates, etc. etc. -- pretty sure that's not a good thing overall good for the body politic ...