The record amount of outside money spent to influence Hawaii elections has further cheapened political discourse in a state already suffering from voter apathy. Attack ads bought by Super PACs not directly affiliated with any candidate flood the airwaves, misleading voters and misrepresenting the views and actions of politicians they seek to keep from elected office.
Across the board, candidates lament the surge in negative advertising, yet many also benefit from it. And given the disconnect between the candidates and the independent expenditure committees buying ads on their behalf, some of which are blatantly inaccurate, individual politicians can plausibly claim that they have no control over the tone of everything from TVspots to direct mailers.
This is the toxic campaign-finance system we are left with in the wake of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations, labor unions and other special interests to spend as much at they want for or against any candidate, as long as the special interest does not coordinate its spending directly with a candidate’s campaign.
The latest reports from Hawaii’s Campaign Spending Commission show that Super PACspending on candidates so far this election cycle totals nearly $6 million, already surpassing by $400,000 that spent during the 2012 elections.
Thus we have the American Comeback Committee, the Super PACtied to the Republican Governors Association, taking gubernatorial candidate David Ige’s comments grossly out of context to falsely assert that Ige was all for a pension tax. And we have the NEAAdvocacy Fund, a Super PACof the National Education Association, parent union of the Hawaii State Teachers Association, laying Furlough Fridays at the feet of former Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona, who is now running for governor, as if it was not Hawaii’s public schoolteachers themselves who preferred furloughs to straight pay cuts or layoffs during the Great Recession. There are many more examples, in this race and others, airing daily.
To the political operatives who devise these messages, it’s practically a game, about winning the day, winning the cycle and ultimately winning the election. It goes without saying that these Super PACs aren’t spending all this money for nothing — they look forward to the return on their investment after their favored candidates are elected.
None of this is new. Even twisting a candidate’s own words to use against him is a tried-and-true strategy in the cut-throat world of politics, paying no mind to context, much less accuracy or even basic fairness.
What makes it all the more insidious and impactful is the volume at which it is now occurring, and the ubiquitous nature of these types of ads is directly related to the growing amount of money being spent by outside groups to influence the Hawaii electorate.
The adverse effects are obvious, and potentially include suppressed voter turnout, because people are so turned off by the ceaselessly negative tone they tune out altogether; rising cynicism, as voters exposed to an overload of negative information give up trying to figure out what is true; and a decrease in issues-oriented campaigning, because candidates have to spend so much time responding to false attacks.
Ultimately, this warped process of getting elected risks putting candidates in office who will be paralyzed on the job: unwilling to take even a procedural vote in favor of some tax increase, for example, lest they be endlessly pilloried for it during the next campaign.
Still, there is more that the candidates themselves can do to stem the flow of cash from third-party groups, and they must step up to do it. One promising mechanism is the People’s Pledge, which commits participating candidates to make charitable contributions from their campaigns to offset money spent on their behalf by outside groups. Doing so dissuades outside spending, according to the good government group Common Cause, which is promoting the concept. Of the Hawaii candidates eligible this election cycle, only Republican Charles Djou, seeking the 1st Congressional District seat, expressed serious interest, Common Cause reports. This idea needs refinement, but it should be improved and tried again, next time rolled out before the primary election.
Ultimately, the most effective remedy against poisonous electioneering is for Congress to enact legislation undoing what the U.S. Supreme Court has wrought. Candidates cannot honestly claim to be for clean elections and then stay silent on this issue. Whoever Hawaii elects to Congress should lead the charge.
