Issue Position: Better Government

Issue Position

"Transparency is critical to a healthy democracy and we cannot let our political process be undermined by those seeking to exploit its loopholes."

Chris Passes Bill To Force SuperPAC Transparency

A bill I passed this year will begin to lift the veil of secrecy hiding the money pouring into elections and political advertising. Billions of dollars have flooded political campaigns from secretive superPACs, often funded by special interest groups and corporations seeking to influence elections.

In Hawaii, sixteen superPACs spent $4.8 million to influence voters in the 2012 election. As the Star-Advertiser reported, "Information about where that money was coming from -- in other words who was trying to influence the elections -- remained murky, often by design."

The superPAC law I authored will require that top contributors be disclosed on any television, radio or print advertising so voters know who is funding a political ad as they see it. The Star-Advertiser explains, "it would cause major potential donors of PACs to consider whether they want to be associated publicly with negative and misleading political ads. But most important, it would introduce some much-needed openness to a political practice that has become increasingly influential."

Amendment Chris Introduces To Stop Special-Interest "Pay-To-Play" Politics Successful

It was an 11th-hour underdog victory that held back a deluge of special-interest money in our political system. Our nation has a long history of allowing government for the people be undermined as special interests get special access to the political process. This is especially true when private companies bid on lucrative state contracts -- they have often been caught courting state officials around the country to get the inside track.

Here in Hawaii, when several amendments were quietly made to House Bill 2003 to make it legal for companies with state contracts to make campaign donations to elected officials, something had to be done to stop it. This "pay to play" amendment suggests that to compete for a government contract, companies must make campaign donations to particular elected officials.

"Pay to play was an unseemly and immoral process that soiled the image of this House and politics in general," said Rep. Cynthia Thielen (R -- Kailua, Kaneohe). In the 11th hour, I introduced an amendment and rallied the votes to strip the controversial "pay to play" provision from this otherwise good campaign spending reform bill and hold back a deluge of special-interest money in our political system. Such a rare victory goes to show just how important it is to keep an eye on the relationships between special interests and our government, but more importantly, how even one person can stand up and make a difference every once in a while.

Publicly Financed Elections: Taking Money Out Of Politics

Like it or not, the candidate with the most money, rather than the best ideas, almost always wins the election. It's time that we make elected officials accountable to the people they represent, rather than the companies that fund their campaigns. In the 1990s elected officials in Arizona were tied to their corporate campaign donors and utility rates and public policy were regularly shaped in favor of those interests at the expense of taxpayers.

Deciding they had enough, Arizona residents changed their elections laws and decided the state should publicly fund the campaigns of candidates running for office so those candidates would be beholden to no one but the people they represent. Public donations and money from court-ordered civil fines paid for more than 1100 candidates running clean elections without having to take money from special interests. The result was a change in public policy that put the people first -- utilities could no longer count on their hand-picked elected officials to look out for them and were forced to change their ways.

In 1978, Hawaii voters chose to create the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund and create a similar elections public funding system. Unfortunately, since 1978 elections have become so expensive that this plan no longer provides enough money for candidates to be competitive, who instead are forced to rely on raising money from private donors. If we can revamp the system we will give voters an option to elect candidates who are free from outside influence.

Overall, public funding increases voter turnout and candidate participation and it builds trust between taxpayers and legislators who are free from the corrosive influence of special interest campaign contributors, which is better for democracy and better for all of us. A bill to do just this almost passed in 2013. I will be back to try to push it through next year.

Source