Curbing ‘big money’
I am writing to strongly support clean elections. I am delighted that a program for comprehensive public funding — Clean Elections — is finally back for consideration.
Starting in 2009, a group of my advanced students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo agreed that getting big money out of politics was critical. They joined the Global HOPE association to petition and lobby to get the state to fund the popular Clean Elections Pilot Program in the Big Island’s 2010 and 2012 County Council elections.
It was a stunning success. Even the candidates who were initially against the pilot program — but used it after it had passed — acknowledged that it was better to spend their time meeting with their constituents about community issues rather than fundraising.
The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision legalized political bribery, using the absurd legal fictions that “corporations are people” and that “money is speech.”
Unfortunately, the Big Island pilot program was not continued. But I see that the Maine and Connecticut Clean Elections programs still thrive. On the Big Island in the clean elections of 2010-2012, we saw a new crop of younger and working-class candidates who were more representative of the Big Island community. That’s democracy.
Without clean elections, democracy declines. The rich and big corporations tilt the playing field. Historically, bribing politicians was illegal — and punishable by prison time. But three Republican-supported Supreme Court decisions in 1976, 1978 and 2010 reopened the way for the rich to contribute vast sums to (control) candidates and government officials.
The Big Island’s Clean Elections Pilot Program of 2010 and 2012 was very popular and a great success. Let’s get something like it statewide for all elections — as proposed by Sen. Karl Rhoads — and begin the restoration of a more democratic government.
Noelie Rodriguez
Hilo
Church and state
Russ Button in his letter of Jan. 29 has some interesting points. However, his basic premise is incorrect.
He states that “People seem to forget why the Founding Fathers chose to declare the separation of church and state in the First Amendment.”
There is no such declaration in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. The First Amendment simply states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The emphasis is completely on the limitations being imposed on Congress, and rightly so.
It is sad that so many of our citizens believe that the “separation of church and state” is to be found in our Constitution. It actually comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson years after the First Amendment was created, and even his meaning is misconstrued.
Daniel J. Kunert
Hilo
