i L i n d . n e t

I’ll probably ruffle a few feathers with my column in the new issue of Honolulu Weekly, which criticizes the belief that the Superferry is getting special legislative treatment because its campaign contributions have swayed key officials. My own view is that the only surprising thing about the Superferry’s campaign contributions is that there weren’t many of them, relatively speaking.

Looking at the numbers, it’s clear that the Superferry figured out that it’s easier–although not less expensive–to buy public opinion and then promote the working of the political process with top inside lobbyists and by directing the newly purchased public opinion through a focused public relations campaign, so called “outside lobbying” at its best.

So it’s not that I don’t think money and power made a key difference. It’s just that there’s little evidence that the Superferry relied on campaign contributions to do the trick, and I don’t think it’s at all helpful to bait an already cynical public with exaggerations of the impact of the Superferry’s relatively small contributions. Anyway, pick up a copy of the Weekly when it comes out today.

While you’re at it, check out the piece published two weeks ago on the sad retreat of the Campaign Spending Commission, which is now poised to remove most of the remaining constraints on third-party or “independent” attack ads during elections. In Hawaii, this will undoubtedly mean more of those last minute committees with obscure names and hidden donors jumping in at the last minute with barrages of often-misleading ads. It will also mean that unions and corporations will be able to use their own bank accounts to fund such efforts without disclosing their involvement. And you can thank the new U.S. Supreme Court for overturning laws, like Hawaii’s, that sought to control this kind of campaign advertising thinly disguised as “issue” advertising.

Back to the Super Session. I noted a couple of things of interest yesterday. First, browsing session documents, I noted that the Senate revised its internal rules to make the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms responsible directly to Senate President Hanabusa rather than the Senate Clerk. I didn’t see any explanation or justification offered for this transfer of powers, although there may have been comments on the Senate floor at the time the rules were approved (Senate Resolution 1).

Second, although the ferry bill is certain to pass, I see that the House committee report does include several sections highly critical of the state and the Superferry’s management for their role in creating this mess.

For example:

Decisions by DOT to exempt new maritime activities from the preparation of an EA or EIS and the methodology used in making this determination are also of concern to your Committees. While it is true that DOT may have followed and used a similar methodology to exempt various harbor projects in the past for other harbor users, your Committees find that DOT failed to adequately consider the spirit and intent of the law as found in HEPA and the corresponding administrative rules, and articulated in previous court decisions. HEPA was enacted to ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate considerations in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations. In addition, the Public Utilities Commission, when issuing a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to HSF in 2004, specifically raised the issue of an environmental review and deferred to the authority of DOT to comply with applicable laws, including HEPA. Your Committees believe that State officials should have been more vigilant in the interests of protecting the environment while seeking to enhance the economy of the State and that more due diligence is required when making decisions that may have significant environmental impacts for future generations.

Going into this special session, there was fear that the special provisions being sought for the Superferry would undermine the overall environmental protection laws. However, as the issue has played out, it could actually result in greater attention to environmental enforcement as legislators seek to balance out their votes in favor of the Superferry by trying to demonstrate their continuing commitment to the environment. Time will tell if that’s a correct prediction.

And as to the Superferry’s management, the Legislature made another finding:

When HSF signed the agreement to purchase two vessels in 2004, it took a calculated business risk in deciding to begin operations before the completion of an EA or EIS by DOT, particularly when a number of agencies and citizen groups encouraged an environmental review. Your Committees finds that HSF should have taken a more cautious approach in proceeding with its operations by having DOT prepare or contract to prepare an EA, and EIS if necessary. HSF cannot claim detrimental reliance when its own attorneys urged caution.

That finding is then pointed to as justification for the requirement that the Superferry waive any claims and indemnify the state in order to take advantage of the bill’s special provisions.

So it goes at the Capitol.

I missed this report of the death at age 19 of Powell’s Books store cat on the company’s blog earlier in the week. I don’t believe we ever met her, but saw many photos and tributes to her on the bulletin boards in Powell’s flagship store on Burnside in Portland when we visited.

Here’s another cat-related item I missed when it appeared. It seems Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has taken up the cause of feral cats. Since our household is now filled with former stray or feral cats (with the exception of Duke, who was rescued in utero from a troubled home), this is a cause we can get behind.