I discussed problems with the state’s lobbyist law and made preliminary suggestions of priority fixes at an event late yesterday afternoon sponsored by Common Cause Hawaii, Kanu Hawaii, and the League of Women Voters. Several dozen people attended, and there was plenty of time for some good questions and substantial discussion. I’ll have to share my suggestions after having a chance to clean up my notes.
Several people asked whether I think corruption is a major factor at the legislature and, perhaps, in Hawaii politics more generally.
I took the question to be using the term “corrupt” in a standard meaning like this one.
CORRUPT
Adjective: Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
It’s a question I’ve thought about quite a bit as an investigative reporter. There’s sort of an investigative planning drill where you try to think through the opportunities that might present themselves to public officials. If I were a legislator, for example, or other political official, what would be the best way to move money from those special interests and their lobbyists into my own pockets or the pockets of someone close to me for later retrieval? How would you avoid detection? Thinking through various scenarios then suggests areas where a proactive reporter might be looking for evidence of that kind of corruption. I’m sure at least a few other reporters go through similar exercises from time to time.
My own impression, as I said last night, is that this kind of corruption–the blatant selling of votes–isn’t a major factor locally. Undisclosed and uncorrected conflicts of interest are much more common, but selling votes? Not so much, at least in my experience.
It probably happens on a small scale, since we are sure to have some members of the legislature, or in other positions, who have problems with alcohol and other addictions that can be exploited. But I think it would be hard to keep blatant corruption under wraps so consistently for so long.
But I think I heard another meaning being given to the word, “corrupt.”
What I thought I heard is that, from this other perspective, politics are seen as corrupt because political processes gives some people–those with money, power, connections, experience, family ties, even professional expertise–more influence in shaping policy than your average concerned citizen or group of concerned citizens.
Lobbyists have an obvious edge because they know the legislative system and are in a position to take advantage of its quirks and foibles to advance their clients’ interests, both in the hallways of the capitol and also out in the political world, where they have the means to support the campaigns of legislators who share their viewpoints.
I don’t think those contributions buy votes. The political world is too complicated for that kind of simple exchange. They do, however, certainly increase access, directly or indirectly. More importantly, though, lobbyists or others who contribute are part of the scene, they make the rounds at fundraisers to see and be seen, they become familiar with legislators and staff, and their access grows over time accordingly.
While I understand the frustration of trying to affect legislation without being a capitol insider, I don’t think it’s helpful to view this essentially inequality of influence as corruption.
So when people say the system is corrupt, what are they really saying? Add your comments, please.
Just for fun, here’s one of our favorite corruption scenes from that fine bit of cinema history, “Beverly Hills Cop II.”
Gilbert Gottfried is great!