Who Pays Hawaii Politicians to Play?

"Let's quid pro goooooo!"

Hipsta Pravda cartoonist Will Caron’s latest may be too optimistic:

“Hana hou” means ‘do (it) again’: i.e., roll the wheel again.

I agree with mmww that four “Busted” on a wheel with twelve possibilities is too many:

If the wheel were to represent actual reality in our government, there would only be a single "Busted" slot at about 1/10th of the size [of the wheel].

I also agree with Polyanitsa:

The sad part is all of this is true but probability for change is Zero.

The probability of what SillyState wants is close to zero.

Hawaii's voters need to wake up.

If voters remain sleep, it’s up to politicians to police themselves. LOL.

The key word in this Hipsta Pravda article title is “appear”.

House Bill 371 would ban donations from state and county contractors, their officers and immediate family members. Those bans would also apply to officers of nonprofits receiving state and county grants.

The bill is one of the most significant political reform measures under consideration in the Legislature this year and is seen as an important step to helping rein in pay-to-play politics in Hawaiʻi. A Civil Beat/New York Times investigation last year found that donations from contractors accounted for nearly 20% of all campaign contributions since 2006.

I’m surprised that percentage isn’t higher. I hypothesize that the construction industry is very shady. I have never seen an in-depth investigation of it in Hipsta Pravda, regular Pravda, or what passes for elephant journalism here. Both Pravdas are loyal opposition with curated criticism of the One Party. Hipsta Pravda hits harder than Pravda, but it still pulls its punches.

I’ll take what I can get, though …

Lawmakers introduced several bills in January aimed at cracking down on contractor and grantee donations. HB 371, the Campaign Spending Commission’s proposal, is the last measure alive.

Will HB 371 end up like the others - like attempts from the previous two years?

This would be the third year in a row that the Legislature has tried to close a pay-to-play loophole that has allowed people with ties to contractors to donate to campaigns.

Senator Karl Rhoads (One Party) wants contractor and contractor family information to be

only be made available to candidates on a page maintained by the Campaign Spending Commission. The campaigns would be given login credentials to access those names.

You can trust Sen. Rhoads. He was wearing a mask as late as 2023.

BeaterReader objects to Rhoads’ stance:

I don't see any reason why privacy concerns for contractors vying for lucrative government contracts should be prioritized over public transparency. If a contractor wants to keep this information private, they can go find other work that isn't awarded hundreds of thousands of public dollars funded by taxpayer money.

Could a ban on contractor donations be unconstitutional? AlohaSpirit doesn’t seem to care (and neither do I):

Any contractors who think their First Amendment rights would be violated because they can't donate to campaigns should simply not bid for any State contracts. No one forces you to get in business with the State and accept taxpayer money, but once you do, you must abide by common-sense restrictions like this one.

Even if the ban were just more than prettywords, there are workarounds. Mauitutu (tutu means ‘grandmother’) names one:

Contributions that would go to candidates will be redirected to Super Pacs that have no requirements for disclosure.

So like oppo, I am not optimistic.

If ever there was a textbook case of foxes guarding the hen house; this is it.

I’ll let Surferdude have the last word.

Reform? Not a chance.