The biggest threat to democracy is not unregulated immigration, but rather the unregulated and unlimited flow of money into political campaigns on both sides of the aisle.
Billionaire Elon Musk has given $75 million to a super PAC supporting the election of Donald Trump and promised to give away $1 million each day to a registered voter who signs his petition (illegal) until November’s election. (Reuters)
Hundreds of millions of dollars from big business interests have also been raised in support of Vice President Kamala Harris.
Here at home, a Honolulu-based super PAC “For A Better Tomorrow” just invested $84,672 in support of incumbent council member and former Mayor Bernard Carvalho, former council member Arryl Kaneshiro, and incumbent council member Addison Bulosan.
That’s $28,224 apiece.
Compared to national numbers, it’s a piddling amount.
But for local elections, it’s huge.
For context, $28,224 exceeds the entire campaign budgets for 85 percent of the 14 council candidates running.
For further context, the maximum legal amount any individual may donate to a council campaign is $2,000.
According to the Campaign Spending Commission,“For a Better Tomorrow” hired Red Horse Strategies on Oct. 8 for $22,307 and Targeted Platform Media, LLC on Oct. 15 for $62,365 to promote their three candidates.
And there’s more to come.
“For a Better Tomorrow” is a “NonCandidate Committee Super PAC” with nearly $8 million dollars in the bank courtesy of the Hawaii Carpenters Market Recovery Program Fund.
The political mailer that arrived at my house on Saturday was twice the size of others I’d received, and was promoting three different council candidates who appeared “linked” together as a slate.
The image literally has the three of them together on a string.
It’s only after reading the fine (and very small hard to read) print that one discovers, “Paid for by For a Better Tomorrow without the approval or authority of the candidate.”
So it’s clear (but not really). The candidates themselves had nothing to do with running this advertisement. At least they didn’t approve or authorize it. Perhaps they discussed it, were asked their opinion of it, or were made aware of it? Or perhaps not.
In any case, it’s clear they did not approve or authorize it, and you really can’t blame the candidates for the work of the super PAC.
A super PAC supports candidates who will support the super PAC’s agenda. At least, that’s the expectation.
We each vote for, and support candidates we believe support our own values and our own policy agenda. I’ve supported candidates via a noncandidate committee in the past as well – albeit at a tiny fraction of the amounts being spent by For a Better Tomorrow super PAC.
The whole thing stinks. Political campaigns should not be won or lost based on who has the wealthiest friends.
In a controversial 2010 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. Brennan Center for Justice
A 5–4 majority decided limiting “independent political spending” violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Lawmakers at all levels need to stop making excuses and do something.
If unlimited expenditures cannot be banned, then dramatically increase the basic regulation requirements at all levels.
For starters think: Increased disclosure, special sales taxes (think alcohol, short-term rentals, tobacco, etc), escalating administrative fees.“Fine print disclosures” used in mailers must be made large enough to easily read, and verbal disclosures on radio and tv must be clear enough to actually understand what’s being said.
Yes, it’s a bit ironic. We are counting on elected officials, who are counting on super PACs to win, to do the right thing.
