It’s crazy really.

We’re reading today about a Hawaiʻi grand jury meeting to decide whether or not to bring criminal charges against individuals believed to have both given, and received $35,000 in a paper bag. Of course, there’s no telling where this will lead, when another shoe or two will drop, and upon which politician’s head it will fall.

At the same time I’m looking at an email from a local “political advocacy group” telling me that I should not be worried about the $2,469,561.56 spent between July 9 – July 17th by Pacific Resource Partnership (PRP) and related Superpac “For a Better Tomorrow” – for the purpose of influencing our local elections.

It’s just the way campaigns work the email said. It takes money to run a campaign and the SuperPac is just helping candidates they believe will do a good job. It’s all legal, copacetic, fine, ok, and completely satisfactory.

What?

These same folks have their knickers in a knot over cash in a paper bag, but prefer to just ignore the millions being spent by PRP with the unquestionable intent of influencing who wins and loses in the upcoming elections.

Whether someone is giving $35,000 in a paper bag directly to an elected official, or $2,469,561.56 indirectly to 20 elected officials and candidates, the money is being given for the same identical purpose – to influence the decisions of government in favor of the person or organization giving the money.

In both cases (the paper bag money and the SuperPac money), there are no “upper limits” to the money being transferred, and none of the money is reported publicly by the candidates as a campaign contribution.

Normal campaign contributions have a “maximum donation cap”, and the name, address, occupation of donor, and amount of the contribution, is reported publicly by the candidate via the campaign spending commission reporting guidelines.

There’s no question that the power and influence of big money is corrupting and has corrupted the outcome of our elections, the outcome of legislative processes, and the funding of government services and capital improvement projects.

Money buys access to government decision makers. Big money buys big access to big government decision makers.

Access is not illegal, but those with access have influence, AND this gives them (and the projects and government policies that benefit them) a HUGE advantage over everyone else.

My core values are based on putting people and the planet ahead of corporate profit.

Food and energy self-sufficiency are two of my most important issue priorities.

But the single most important political/electoral litmus test for me today is “getting big money out of politics and elections”.

Candidates receiving “indirect” financial support from any SuperPac – cannot simply claim to “have no control” over that contribution, while receiving tangible benefits from that money.

Candidates that truly believe, support, and are willing to fight against the big money, need to say so publicly and out loud for all the world to hear.

I will not and cannot vote for any candidate that accepts, directly or indirectly, financial campaign support from any entity, that exceeds the normal campaign contribution limits – and who fails to speak out to disavow such contributions.

Both the giving and the receiving of big money support cast a shadow over our democracy, and both the donor and the candidate share responsibility and culpability.

Please join with me today, and refuse to support any candidate that does not meet the test.

Enough already.

Gary Hooser