������Ƶ

The defendants may have been acquitted, but the recent public corruption trial of former Honolulu Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro, prominent businessman Dennis Mitsunaga and others delivered a different verdict as well: Pay-to-play politics is alive and well in Hawaii.

Not even the defendants argued that point.

Now, the question is: What are we going to do about it?

Mitsunaga and his associates at the engineering firm Mitsunaga & Associates Inc. denied that they bribed Kaneshiro to go after a former employee they wanted prosecuted. But their lawyers correctly pointed out there was nothing illegal about pouring money into the prosecutor’s campaign war chest “for the purpose of gaining access.”

“Campaign contributions are not only a constitutionally-protected form of free speech, but due to reporting requirements are an extremely public and transparent way to spend money,” the lawyers wrote in a March 12 . “By contrast a bribe is clandestine by nature.”

“Furthermore, (MAI) and its employees have a long history of making campaign contributions,” the lawyers continued. “Campaign contributions are lawful for the purpose of supporting a public official’s campaign, and equally lawful if made for the purpose of gaining access to that public official.”

Federal prosecutors produced significant circumstantial evidence to show that in this case MAI went further than just gaining access. Kaneshiro took in about $50,000 from company employees and his office launched a dubious prosecution of a former company employee, a case that was ultimately ridiculed and dismissed by a judge.

Eight of the 12 jurors in the just-completed corruption case initially favored conviction on at least some of the counts, but the jury foreman said the ultimate acquittals reflected the lack of “smoking gun” proof of a quid pro quo. This despite the judge’s that “You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact.”

Convictions in this case would obviously have delivered a stronger message about public corruption. Would that have been sufficient to recharge efforts at serious reform among our current officeholders?

Maybe. We’ll never know now.

But what the jury verdict did do was send a signal to legislators that the public appears to simply shrug when substantial evidence of favoritism by elected officials is laid out. Not to mention the serious campaign finance violations that were revealed during the trial.

We already know our Legislature will dodge any significant reform of the way the political system works especially when it comes to giving the public stronger scrutiny over legislating and election policy.

Remember when two former legislators pleaded guilty in 2022 to accepting bribes? It prompted the formation of a much-ballyhooed commission that cited the public perception of a “moral crisis” in state government and recommended dozens of reforms.

Some of the minor recommendations were adopted by the Legislature. All of the major ones, whether they came from the commission or other good-government groups, .

Full public funding of political campaigns. Legislative term limits. A citizens ballot initiative process. Year-round legislative sessions. All tools that would give the public more influence on vital issues facing Hawaii.

This past session, a year after the big push for reform and the memory of lawmakers taking cash bribes was fading, even some of the more moderate reform proposals died without even getting a hearing.

Those included two measures from the Campaign Spending Commission that addressed the very pay-to-play politics that were at issue in the recent corruption trial.

One would have from companies that get government contracts to include the officers and immediate family members of the companies. It also would have applied the same prohibitions to recipients of government grants.

The other bill would have prohibited elected officials from during legislative sessions. Now, donations flow in from special interests even as their bills are being heard in committee.

The bills were stopped cold in the House and Senate Judiciary committees. While they were dying, the New York Times and Civil Beat published an article that seems to have opened a lot of eyes.

By examining hundreds of thousands of campaign contributions and more than 70,000 government contracts, reporters discovered that nearly $1 out of every $5 donated to politicians came from people tied to companies doing business with state and local governments.

And when some companies were on the verge of winning big government contracts, people connected to them donated larger amounts of money to the relevant officials.

At least a dozen Hawaii lawmakers work for or own companies that get state contracts, the article documented.

The same report also documented late-night parties where lobbyists and executives seeking government contracts lined up to drop cash and checks into a metal lockbox. A typical party could bring in thousands of dollars in donations, giving some elected officials almost half their annual campaign haul in a single night.

It was more evidence — and not the circumstantial type — of Hawaii’s pay-to-play culture.

Senate Judiciary Chair Karl Rhoads now says he will look at expanding the ban on donations from people connected to government contractors and grantees with “more urgency” next year.

There are opportunities dead ahead if only Hawaii voters would take better advantage of them than they have in the past.

Perhaps it’s progress that the general public is being made more aware of the donor-to-politician connections that close government observers have long known about.

But what will we do with this knowledge, which is staring us right in the face?

Juries are squeamish about upending the cozy relationship between contributors and elected officials. Legislators won’t pass major reforms, including the one that would allow voters to go over their heads through the type of citizens initiative process that already exists in every other Western state.

We’re going to have to do it ourselves.

The state primary is Aug. 10. The general election is Nov. 5. Ballots will be sent out a couple weeks before that and mail-in voting will begin.

You need to pay attention this time. Look at the records of the incumbents seeking reelection. Give more consideration to those unknown challengers and where they come down on accountability and ethical behavior along with their positions on major issues. Because this is a major issue.

Incumbents — not all but enough of them — are the people who are keeping our system of pay-to-play government in business.

It’s up to us now. And one of the few precious chances that we do have is coming soon via the ballot box. Your vote does indeed matter.