House Speaker Scott Saiki has thrown his support behind an effort for full public financing for political candidates starting in 2028, which proponents say would reduce the temptation for political corruption and perhaps lead to a new generation of younger elected officials who aren’t beholden to special interests and corporations.

A previous effort introduced by state Sen. Karl Rhoads (D, Nuuanu-­Downtown-Iwilei) stalled last year. But Saiki’s introduction of House Bill 2321 on Wednesday could turn the idea into reality this session, according to House Rep. Jeanne Kapela (D, Volcano-Naalehu-­Hawaiian Ocean View).

“I’m so excited to see that Speaker Saiki is pushing for it,” Kapela said. “The leader of the House sees the importance of putting community first. I hope it is a new dawn for the House.”

Both Rhoads’ Senate Bill 2381 that he introduced this session and Saiki’s HB 2321 would lay the groundwork for publicly financed campaigns four years from now by providing the same amount of public financing for each candidate in the same races — similar to programs in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine and New Mexico, according to the bills.

Most political candidates in Hawaii raise money through contributions to finance their campaigns, while a few agree to fundraising limits in order to receive limited state funds.

Full public financing would likely mean strict rules for those who qualify.

The bills would prohibit candidates who accept full public financing “from soliciting, accepting, or using contributions from any source other than the program’s public funds.”

Candidates for the same race would receive identical amounts of state funds to run for any elected office.

The highest amount would be for candidates for governor: $1.675 million for the primary election and $825,000 in the general, for a total of $2.5 million.

The lowest would be for county council seats in “a county with a population of less than one hundred fifty thousand — $20,100 in the primary, $9,900 in the general, for a maximum of $30,000,” according to the bills.

Other candidates might decide to raise money on their own without state funds, said Colin Moore, who teaches public policy at the University of Hawaii and is associate professor at the University of Hawaii Economic Resource Organization.

States that provide public campaign funds tend to see “an increase in the diversity of candidates,” Moore said. “You get younger candidates and people running for office for the first time.”

Proponents of “clean government” have been demanding election and campaign spending reform that started to become reality following 31 recommendations proposed by the Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct after the February 2022 guilty pleas of disgraced former Senate Majority Leader J. Kalani English and former Rep. Ty J.K. Cullen.

They pleaded guilty in federal court to accepting bribes to support and kill legislation on behalf of Milton J. Choy, owner and manager of a company called H2O Process Systems.

In 2020, former Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha and his then-wife former Deputy Prosecutor Katherine Kea­loha were convicted of corruption in federal court, followed by the 2022 federal indictment of former Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro.

On Tuesday, former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee Rowena Akana had her $23,000 fine upheld by the state Intermediate Court of Appeals for violations of the state ethics code, a ruling she plans to appeal.

Camron Hurt, program manager for Common Cause Hawaii, said full public financing of political candidates would allow elected officials to focus on voters’ concerns and not special interests “by removing big money from our politics.”

At the same, Hurt said, “I hope it allows for greater participation from the candidates, for a kid growing up in Pauoa or Nanakuli.”

“Having the speaker’s unwavering support and leadership in this bill is astronomical at a risk to his own seat, at risk to his own colleagues who may disagree with the bill he wants to see fully financed citizen elections,” Hurt said. “It is courageous. It is commendable to have the speaker of the House take a stand and say he wants to put a stop to enormous amounts of corruption. He must be commended.”

Kapela said publicly financed campaigns will help candidates like her who are reluctant to raise money and feel guilty about asking constituents for cash, especially in “impoverished” communities like hers.

“I am Native Hawaiian,” she said. “Being able to ask people for money, especially in a very impoverished community, I could never ask people in my community to donate because I would feel terrible to take money away from their family when they’re just trying to put a roof over their head.”

Kapela said that full public financing of elections also represents “a recommitment to Hawaiians and a recommitment to communities and women and minorities and people of color and nontraditional candidates.”

A year ago, Moore wrote a report for UHERO about public campaign elections under a headline that included the phrase, “Opportunities for Hawaii.”

“As one might expect, the advent of these programs led to a dramatic decline in the overall number of private contributions to individual campaigns,” Moore wrote. “In Maine they fell by more than 60 percent during the program’s first decade. Without the pressure to raise private donations, candidates devote their time and energy to canvassing.”

But public financing did not lead to the kind of sweeping campaign reforms that many groups want in Hawaii.

“First, outside money from independent expenditure groups did not decrease,” Moore wrote. “Legislators can still participate in private fundraising efforts to raise money for Political Action Committees (PACs). Indeed, a 2010 analysis of the Maine law found that many candidates raised private money for PACs even as they participated in the public campaign financing program. Second, in Maine, the number of contested races did not increase and the reelection rate of incumbents did not decline.”

On balance, however, Moore wrote that public financing led to changes that were “quite robust, particularly in Connecticut where they are generous enough that it makes little sense for most candidates to raise private funds.”