������Ƶ

The Hawaii House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee last Thursday deferred a measure that would establish a public financing option for candidates seeking state and county public offices. The bill known as was driven by the honorable intention of keeping big money out of campaigns, thus opening the race for more candidates.

Testifiers in support of this bill lauded the effort to remove the threat of outsized influence on policy makers by wealthy individuals, corporations and lobbyists. The decision to spike the bill has met with a predictable outcry from those who feel sitting lawmakers are being self-protective.

But there was danger lurking in this well-meaning effort: the specter of “dark money.” Dark money is the term used for coordinated spending meant to influence political races where the original source of the money is not disclosed.

Most people think of super PACs when this term is used. But it can also apply to member supported 501(c)4 nonprofits who buy ads or conduct political mailings in support of individual candidates.
We have seen the impact of dark money in Hawaii.

In the 2022 election, the Carpenter’s Union super PAC Be Change Now spent at least $3.2 million to influence the race for lieutenant governor — without disclosing any of its individual donors. Several other entities collectively spent $1.2 million to influence the 1st Congressional District race.

In both races, the super PACs paid handsomely to smear the candidates they opposed through mailers and TV ads.

Blame It On SCOTUS

Thanks to the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling known as Citizens United, these entities are not beholden to any spending limits, which means that publicly financed candidates whose spending is capped by law are easy prey for dark money committees who seek to push a specific agenda.

And with a capped limit on what candidates can spend to fight back, the dark money entities won’t have to spend much to control the narrative. Public spending gives the bad guys a bigger bang for their buck.

Let’s suppose that a group with big development on its mind decides it needs to be able to sway a majority of Honolulu City Council members for key votes. That’s five votes out of nine total members for a majority.

By law publicly financed City Council candidates would be limited to $90,450 in the Primary Election. Using the $3.2 million spent in one state race in 2022, that gives dark money the overwhelming spending advantage of $640,000 per council seat, seven times what the earnest candidate has in their capped budget.

If we don’t act to curb dark money interference, a public financing system may end up supersizing the very thing it seeks to protect against: outsized influence by wealthy, agenda-driven entities — and at bargain basement prices.

Hawaii can’t comfortably convert to public financing limits without placing all available limits on dark money spending. More than ever we need safeguards.

Resources must be given to the Campaign Spending Commission or the Office of Attorney General to investigate allegations of illegal collusion between candidates and PACs. The news media must commit to in-depth analysis for dark money smears, an example being the Pinocchio rating system for lies.

The civic advocacy organizations now testifying soberly for public financing must take specific, hard public stands when dark money manipulators stir their cauldrons.

Ironically, any public financing measure holds two pieces of legislation: First a public financing law and second the law of unintended consequences.

We can either be very surprised or very ready.