It’s one thing to lament the influence of money in politics, to bemoan the power of Super PACs that besmirch candidates first and apologize later — long after they’ve flooded a race with cash and the candidate they prefer has prevailed.
Beyond complaining about the threat to democracy, voters who care about having a fair and transparent campaign-finance system must take the necessary steps to blunt this Super PAC influence, as overwhelming as that influence may seem at times.
One of the easiest ways to do this is to vote based on the candidates’ clearly stated opinions, positions and actions regarding important issues — not based on what some Super PAC says about a candidate or about his or her opponents.
Most candidates these days, even the low-budget ones, make valid information about their backgrounds, experience and priorities readily available in a variety of ways, including through candidate questionnaires in media such as the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and other news sources and via social media including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Some have healthy enough campaign budgets to produce and distribute fliers and other printed material.
Of course, you can find out a whole lot about those seeking elected office if you are lucky enough to be home when a candidate knocks on your door, making the rounds of the neighborhood. Don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions if you get this opportunity for a face-to-face interaction — it’s a lot more informative than waving back at someone standing on the side of the road.
All of the above are valuable ways to find out how a candidate stands on a variety of issues.
What’s not so valuable — at least not to the electorate overall — is the flood of campaign fliers, commercials and other information put out by independent expenditure committees — the formal name for the Super PACs — that are not directly affiliated with any candidate and can spend as much as they want to help a favored candidate get elected or to prevent one they oppose from winning office.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission upheld this financing scheme, as the court ruled that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting independent spending on political campaigns by corporations, labor unions and other groups.
Super PACs that sprang up in the ruling’s wake can spend whatever they want, as long as they do not coordinate the spending with any candidate or his or her political party. Super PACs also can receive an unlimited amount of money from donors as long as there is no coordination between them.
We’ve already seen the ruling’s impact in Hawaii, most vividly in the 2012 Honolulu mayoral race. The Super PAC Pacific Resource Partnership, commonly known as PRP, spent millions to defeat anti-rail candidate Ben Cayetano, who indeed lost the race. He sued for defamation and received an apology from PRP, plus $125,000 donated to causes in his name.
That case laid bare the unseemly influence of money in local politics. It did not, however, slow down the Super PACs. The same pro-development group that financed PRP, for example, now funds Forward Progress, a Super PAC spending big money to help the candidates it favors.
So, what is the careful voter to do? It’s trite, but true: Listen and look for that well-known campaign tagline: "This is so-and-so and I approve this message." At least then the voter can be sure that the message is coming directly from the candidate, and not from some Super PAC that has its own self-interest in mind.
