Hawaiians advocate for public elections funding
Although a bill supporting a groundbreaking public financing program for Hawaii political candidates stalled last week, its supporters won't give up without a fight.
The bill unanimously passed the Hawaii Senate and was championed by Hawaii State House Speaker Scott Saiki, but deadlocked in the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee on March 14. On Monday, more than two dozen advocates for election reform rallied at the Hawaii Capitol to support a “clean elections” plan.
Groups such as the Hawai‘i Workers Center, Indivisible Hawai‘i and Hawai‘i Alliance for Progressive Action think new legislation could lead to a new generation of officials in the state. With full public financing, they say, more candidates would prioritize their constituents' concerns over fundraising, reducing their reliance on donors' priorities.
A recent poll conducted by Clean Elections Hawai‘i Coalition found that 71% of Hawaii registered voters supported publicly funded campaigns.
The advocates say another clean elections bill is moving into the pipeline.
Under the proposed system, candidates demonstrating sufficient voter support would be eligible to receive public funding for their campaigns. The amounts would vary depending on the position sought, with gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates potentially receiving up to $2.5 million. In exchange, candidates seeking public funding would have to adhere to spending limits and be prohibited from raising private donations.
Proponents contended that the funding system would create fairer competition, enabling individuals to be elected without dependence on campaign contributions from special interest groups like businesses, unions and political action committees.
Chuck Freedman, a Hawaii political and government operative, warned during oral testimony that super PACs could still spend large amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Committee chair Rep. David Tarnas cited several reasons for the bill's dismissal, but the primary concern was inadequate funding. Tarnas described the bill as “fatally flawed” because it did not include the estimated $30 million needed to implement the program.