Most candidates for Hawaii’s legislature are willing to reform state government

It’s no surprise that candidates for Hawaii’s legislature are happy with the income tax cut passed last session, or that most say the high cost of living is the biggest problem facing their constituents.

But you may be surprised to learn that the vast majority of them support major reforms to state government, including proposals that have been consistently rejected at the state Capitol.

These include a full public campaign finance option for candidates, nationwide citizen initiatives, term limits for legislatures, and a ban on campaign contributions during sessions.

Many of them even favor requiring state legislatures to adhere to the Sunshine Law, which would force them to discuss the people’s affairs more openly, rather than behind closed doors.

There are 148 legislative candidates on the primary ballot, and so far 92 of them have responded to our survey. One could argue that the other 56 candidates would be less reform-minded, since they have so far chosen to ignore our invitation to explain why people should vote for them.

The offenders include 10 of the 12 sitting senators on the ballot and 24 of the 47 sitting representatives.

Yet it is remarkable to what extent the 92 parliamentary candidates who did respond supported these reforms.

We warmed them up with a simple question: would they vote for good governance proposals even if it meant going against the legislature that constantly thwarts them?

Seventy-one respondents said yes, none said no, and twenty-one respondents showed their political insight by responding without answering the question.

Of course, it’s easy to say that during a campaign and a lot harder when their legislative fortunes are on the line. We just wanted to get them on the record about their independence, because legislators are notorious for buckling under pressure from leaders.

As one candidate put it, “I can say with certainty here, and this will remain online forever, that I will indeed go against the leadership in our legislature if that is what it takes for the greater good of our district and our state.”

We will not forget this quote if this man is elected.

And now the more difficult questions:

Do you support full public financing of elections for candidates who choose to run?

As many respondents noted, this would be the proverbial equaliser, as incumbents now typically have huge financial advantages over competitors.

Fifty-two candidates said yes, and another seventeen said maybe, depending on how the financing would work out.

Twenty said no, with several saying taxpayers would be forced to financially support candidates they might not support. Three did not respond.

Among Republicans, 11 said yes, 5 said maybe and 10 said no.

Hawaii is the only western state without a statewide citizens initiative process. Do you support such a process?

Allowing the citizens to walk over the heads of the legislature? Every session such blasphemy is proposed, and every session it gets zero traction.

This one had slightly more support from Q&A candidates, with 54 saying yes. There was also slightly more opposition, with 24 saying no. Twelve said maybe, and two did not respond.

Among Republicans, 18 said yes, three said maybe and five said no.

Nearly everyone expressed concern that a citizen initiative process could be co-opted by well-paid special interests. But proponents said the benefits of giving more power to the people outweigh the risks.

Some noted that these special interest groups already appear to be exerting their influence effectively, and it may be harder to influence thousands of voters than a handful of politicians.

Incumbents are almost always re-elected in Hawaii’s legislative elections, thanks to their campaign funds and name recognition. Should there be term limits for state legislators, as there are for the governor’s office and county assemblies?

This is an overwhelming majority: 61 candidates said yes, 22 said no, eight said maybe and one said not at all.

Many term limits advocates say serving in the Legislature should not be a lifelong career. But many also stressed the importance of giving state lawmakers time to learn the ropes and make a real difference by proposing longer terms than the eight-year terms already set for the governor and county council members.

Many opponents have buried their heads in the sand and claimed that we already have term limits — they’re called elections. But the fact is that most changes in the legislature occur when legislators leave voluntarily, not when they are ejected by voters.

Perhaps it is not surprising that Republicans, given their continuing minority status on the islands, placed great value on term limits, with 23 voting for them, two voting no, and one voting maybe.

What will you do to bring accountability to the Legislature? Do you support ideas like mandating the Sunshine Law to apply to the Legislature or banning campaign contributions during the session?

This set of questions was less directly worded, so it is no surprise that the number of people who did not want to answer was significantly higher.

Yet, the candidates generally remained reform-minded.

Applying the Sunshine Law to legislators is tricky, since there are 76 of them and their annual session ends in less than four months. Yet their secretive ways are often frowned upon by the public and have been known to lead to criminal corruption.

Forty-five candidates said they were ready to open the Capitol curtains and let in the sunshine. Some argued that legislative sessions should be extended at the same time.

Fifteen others said no, 14 said maybe and 18 did not answer the question.

Regarding banning contributions during the hearing, 53 people said yes, nine people said no and 30 people said no.

A few candidates have incorrectly said that such contributions are already banned, but in reality, only fundraising events are currently banned during sessions. People can still give money to candidates during sessions, and many do.

Here too, Republicans are big reformers. Applying the Sunshine Law to the legislature was supported by 17, with four saying no, one saying maybe, and four not responding. As for banning contributions during the session, 17 again said yes, three said no, and six not responding.

No shortage of ideas

By now, you may have noticed that this column does not name names. We try to be aware that as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we are prohibited under federal tax law from endorsing or opposing specific candidates. We do not want our support of reform initiatives to be perceived as an endorsement of any particular candidate.

But the information is available in individual Q&As if you want to consider the candidates’ positions on reform issues. You can link to them via our full ballot or our searchable Candidate Q&A section.

If you’re looking for clues about who doesn’t want reform, look for references like, “The legislature has already done so much” and “We need to focus on the existing laws” and the aforementioned “We already have term limits.”

If you want, make a note of who hasn’t looked at our questions and answers. We’ve published all the candidates for parliament who have responded up to and including Saturday.

In the meantime, here are a few more ideas from the reform-minded candidates on issues we didn’t ask about but were interested in hearing:

— Don’t allow gifts from lobbyists, “not even a doughnut or a cheap ballpoint pen.”

— Set a cap on the amount that can be invested in future campaigns.

— Prohibit elected officials from donating their campaign funds to other candidates.

— Promote civic education in schools and broader communities so voters understand the political system. Engage them in events with childcare, free food and “joy.”

— Limit the time that officials can serve as legislative leaders and committee chairs.

— Make the Attorney General and the members of the Board of Education elected positions rather than appointed positions.

— Increase the resources of the Ethics Committee and the Campaign Expenditures Committee.

— Exclude active lawyers from leadership positions in the legislature so that they cannot hide behind attorney-client privilege.

— Limit the number of bills each legislator can introduce.

— Establish a “cooling-off period” before former lawmakers can become lobbyists.

— Develop a “real-time” system that allows the public to track campaign contributions and expenditures as they occur.

Finally, one candidate — even an incumbent — expressed fear that Civil Beat’s interest in government reform might “wane.”

We categorically deny that and instead share the sentiment of another reform-minded candidate who said, “I am committed to pushing for these bills every year until they become law.”