The front page of Sunday’s Star-Advertiser featured a banner headline and story: “Governor’s aide tied to big donor.”

My reaction: So what?

The basics are laid out in the first paragraphs.

A former contract coordinator for one of Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s largest campaign and inaugural donors is now a community liaison to the governor who does research on state contracts.

Marvin Wong was a contract coordinator for Mitsunaga & Associates, an architectural, engineering and construction management firm with government and private contracts, for more than six years before leaving in December 2009. He worked in operations for Abercrombie’s campaign for governor, helped with the transition after Abercrombie was elected in November, and was hired by the governor as an assistant.

The story reads like an exposé, leading some commenters to throw around terms like “corruption,” and to express anti-Abercrombie views.

But the story actually doesn’t identify any actual or suspected corruption at all, or wrongdoing of any kind. It seems to really be a non-story.

• It doesn’t allege any wrongdoing, either on the part of the governor, the donor (Mitsunaga) or Wong, the aide.

• The story raises no questions about Wong’s qualifications to hold the position. In fact, it certainly seems appropriate that someone who will be strategizing how to roll out the administration’s accelerated CIP program has considerable experience in contract coordination.

• The story notes, way down near the end, that Wong’s job has nothing to do with selecting contractors or awarding contracts. So he’s outside of any potential “pay to play” loop. So why does “pay to play” get inserted into the story?

• The story recounts the campaign support given to the governor by Wong’s former employer, all apparently legal, it should be noted.

• The story reports Mitsunaga & Associates won substantial amounts of construction-related state contracts over the past six years, during a Republican administration. This seems to mean Mitsunaga’s work is good enough for the company to thrive despite prevailing political winds.

Is it a surprise that someone advising on CIP contracts has a background in contracting? Is it a surprise that Abercrombie drew some large campaign donors as well as hundreds (thousands?) of small individual donors? Obviously not.

So, seriously, where’s the beef?

I agree that large campaign contributors can be in a position to unfairly benefit from the administration’s decisions, and it’s fair to be on guard against this kind of favoritism. But the story doesn’t point to anything of the kind. It just insinuates by juxtaposition.

It looks to me like the story was unfair to Wong, and to Gov. Abercrombie.

What do you think?