Partial publicly funded elections worth trying out

Hawaii’s elections, like those across the country, have been overtaken in an excessively large measure by those with the money to influence the outcome.

Given the climate on the U.S. Supreme Court favoring unfettered expenditures in support of candidates, the efforts to promote "clean elections" on the local level may seem a pointless exercise.

They’re not. The big-money donations by well-heeled individuals and political action committees have been fixtures largely of the high-profile statewide and national races, with the local races being underwritten by a collection of local interests with which public financing can reasonably compete. The state’s existing system of partial public financing for campaigns is largely ineffective, and the current effort to reform it deserves support and further discussion.

A pilot project testing a publicly funded campaign option has enabled several political newcomers to be elected to the Hawaii County Council using a grassroots financing scheme. An amended version of this plan is being proposed in House Bill 1481, extending a more effective means of public financing to those running for all state House and Senate seats.

The bill has made its way through the House and will proceed for further review and discussion by the Senate. The effective date has been moved up to 2015, enabling broader public financing of campaigns for the 2016 elections — and allowing time for preparations to be made by county and state elections agencies.

The formula is similar to what was used in the Hawaii island test races, but somewhat simplified, and it requires the candidate to gain some grassroots credentials to qualify for the public funds.

House candidates would need 250 signatures from district registered voters, each accompanied by a $5 donation; signatures from 350 voters, each donating $5, would be required for Senate candidates.

The bill based the amount of public funds for candidates who qualify on an average of amounts spent in conventional campaigns for those seats, once the three lowest and the three highest spenders are eliminated. This middling figure comes to $34,800 for each House candidate and $68,000 for the Senate.

The outstanding issue is finding a long-term means of replenishing the source of the funds as they’re drawn down each election cycle by candidates.

The fund tapped in the Hawaii island pilot project launched for the 2010 campaigns will also be the source for the proposed expanded program financing House and Senate races: the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund.

Currently that fund is a collection of $3 donations taxpayers contribute through a check-off box on their state tax form.

But the fund falls about $300,000 short of the $3.5 million minimum balance the new law would require to conduct the public financing program. The current version of the bill would require a general-fund appropriation to top up the fund.

That shouldn’t be a deal-breaker to get this program under way, especially given the postponed effective date. However, lawmakers should consider an alternative, dedicated source of funds beyond the taxpayer donations. One state with a model worth considering is Arizona, where a percentage of civil and criminal fines is set aside for its well-established clean-elections program.

A publicly funded option for candidates has a price tag, of course, but the money would buy something worthwhile. Special-interest political influence — which in itself can inflate the cost of government through patronage contracts — would be reduced, and elected officials could operate without the distraction of fundraising burdens.

Passing HB 1481 would ensure an overhaul to make Hawaii’s outdated partial public financing options much more practical, establishing a more accountable path to election that’s more closely tied to the communities the politicians have a duty to serve.