Schatz, Hanabusa contest young but already muddled

The last week had little good political news for the camps of U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz and U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa.

If aspiring doctors are told to "first do no harm," then the instruction to ambitious politicians is, "First don’t screw up."

Last week started with an Internet site dredging up a Schatz flier from his 1998 campaign for the state House. In it, Schatz came out strong for "traditional marriage."

In normal days this would raise no eyebrows, but in the overheated rhetoric of Hawaii’s 1998 campaign against gay marriage, it was a move by Schatz to both toss a shaka to same-sex supporters and calm those worried about what a gay marriage law would do.

"I support traditional marriage. I support traditional family values," Schatz wrote. "I am committed to a solution that preserves traditional marriages without discriminating against minorities or their civil rights."

Back then the state was voting on a constitutional amendment that would specifically give the Legislature the power to define marriage, but both sides used the amendment as a voting litmus test for same-sex marriage.

For instance, Mike Gabbard, who was the chairman of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage, said when 70 percent of the voters approved the amendment, it meant "Hawaii residents don’t want homosexual marriage."

The slippery parsing went both ways. Then-U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie voted for the amendment, but said it didn’t mean he was against gay marriage. He said he felt it was a "good compromise" to achieve the rights and benefits of a partnership for same-sex couples.

"I felt the legislators made a courageous move," he said. "It is a good combination. I stayed with my principles to see that nobody is discriminated against, that everyone has dignity."

A more difficult time faces Hanabusa, who was the subject of a Washington Post story detailing how her deputy chief of staff gave all the appearances of helping drug lobbyists run a campaign to support Hanabusa over Schatz.

Lobbying groups and others can take out ads and help politicians get elected, but federal law requires that there be no coordination between the candidate and the lobbyists. There is nothing wrong with running your own campaign to help a politician, but the moneybags and the pol can’t work together on the campaign.

When Kirk Caldwell ran for mayor last year, critics noted that Pacific Resource Partnership ads for him appeared to use pictures that came from Caldwell’s campaign. The candidate denied it.

Actually proving coordination between an independent expenditure committee and politician is an almost impossible task.

There is nothing about the fund-raising system that makes you shout, "I love how this democracy works." The federal election laws, coupled with U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that removes spending limits on independent expenditures, are not bringing either reform or free expression.

Add to that the insatiable need for politicians to raise and spend more and more money makes the political business hypocritical.

Today we measure a politician’s strength by how much money he or she raises, but without also weighing the influence gained with money coming from pressure groups, businesses and others who want politicians to do something for them.

In the near political terms, the week’s activity shows Hanabusa may have picked up an ammunition belt or two in her battle against Schatz, but Schatz now has an entire ammo dump of political weapons to use against Hanabusa.

The long-term problem of money in politics is still a conversation Schatz and Hanabusa have not yet had.

———

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.