A recent post here traced the campaign contributions to Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell from the directors of a nonprofit group that has lobbied the mayor, and his city administration, to support a proposed children’s playground in a section of Ala Moana Park. All of the directors were shown to be directly linked to developers of the ultra-luxury Park Lane condominium across the street at Ala Moana Center.
The proposal has drawn considerable push-back from the community. Follow-up comments left here, and on Civil Beat after a revised version was published there, show many people find the mayor’s aggressive advocacy on behalf of the project, in the context of this pattern of large campaign contributions to his campaign war chest, to be an example of corruption in the political system.
I have to admit that my first reaction was to be very skeptical of this “contributions=corruption” view. After all, the campaign contributions were legal. No one passed along unmarked envelopes full of money that the mayor or members of his entourage could tuck away and use for their personal benefit. These were not bribes. They were legal contributions to the mayor’s campaign committee to be used for election-related expenses. They could be taken as an example of political participation beyond simply casting a vote, which in the abstract I would certainly support. We need more people actively involving themselves in politics, not fewer.
Initially, I felt that the “contributions=corruption” equation would be more likely to turn people off from political engagement, which in turn would give more power and influence to the special interests that remain engaged if ordinary people turn away from politics because it’s seen as corrupt. It would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We believe it’s corrupt, people become jaded and drop out, creating the conditions that are ideal for corruption.
At the same time, some who commented were sympathetic to the park’s backers who, in their view, were “demonized” by disclosure of their contributions to the mayor in the context of his subsequent strong support for the proposed park.
There’s a bit of truth in that, and I can sympathize with them.
But….
[This is taking longer than I expected to sort out in my own mind and then write about, so I’m going to post this first section on its own. Check back in a day or two for the next part of my analysis.]
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s very simple: Citizens who can offer politicians nothing more than their vote see other “more equal” citizens that throw large amounts of money at the politicians immediately getting their needs attended to on a silver platter.
Is there any wonder why shouts of “CORRUPTION” and feelings of discontent are left festering amongst the 98%??
Also, what perhaps wasn’t crystal clear to some: The “world class special needs all inclusive accessible playground” will NOT cover maintenance and upkeep into perpetuity, rather dumping off that responsibility to the C&C with its known track record of mediocrity and/or failure.
How about “world class playground” joint venture where the Natatorium now stands??
Today’s StarAdvertiser Kokua Line is about another example of a private party installing something then leaving the C&C with maintenance responsibilities.
Ian, harry Kim used to limit (may still) contributions to $20. Granted he had tremendous community recognition and respect. He got elected. Now, what I see happening with our “legal” big money contributions is that those people”s influence is much greater than my $20. They contribute more than I make in a year. Whether their influence is or is not greater than mine, I can’t say, but the appearance is that it is, to the point that I don’t feel it’s worth contributing at all.
I do vote, but sometimes I wonder why. I usually vote more or less against the stream, and the stream is often the money. “Corruption” might be a little strong as far as legal contributions go, but the influence against regular people seeing that it is worth participationg because the conclusion is forgone, is in the same basket. It certainly corrupts any voters’ faith and good will towards our system that may have been there before. Though, I guess we were pretty cynical in high school too.
I hope your continued examination of these issues will motivate you to also reconsider why many people support publicly funded elections…
Non-Profit is the new Silk Road to riches!
Many so called entities pay CEO’s multimillion dollar salaries. HMSA, Queens and Kaiser come to mind.
While political contributions are legal, oftentimes it’s intent unbeknownst to us is not. I very concerned about political contributions because those with funds get politician’s attention/vote. I’m for public funding or some other more fair mechanism. There used to be an organization that focus on public funding. Do you know if they still exist?
Ian, need to ask: if a cause is truly philanthropic, then its inception and planning should include the public.
Also, our mayors have a known penchant for building statues to imagined self-importance. Harris was good at it. Mufi a close 2nd. With tax funds.
It’s almost impossible to not see quid pro quo as a golvmnt standard.