As the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, we are committed to the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and voluntary exchange. These values are fundamental to a free society and should no doubt extend to our electoral process. However, the proposed bill SB51 for comprehensive public financing of campaigns poses significant threats to these ideals. Here’s why we must oppose this initiative.
By instituting a public financing program, the state is effectively inserting itself into the very fabric of political competition. This increased government intervention contradicts our principle of minimal state involvement in the lives of individuals. We must ask ourselves whether we want bureaucrats deciding which candidates are worthy of receiving taxpayer money, thereby influencing who gets to compete in the political arena. Without this type of interference, candidates of all economic backgrounds can seek grassroots support, meaning tax payers would have the freedom to choose the candidates they want.
Hawaii has previously experimented with publicly funded campaigns, but these initiatives have often fallen short of their intended goals. Past programs have struggled with low participation rates and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Many candidates opted out of public financing altogether, viewing it as inadequate for running effective campaigns. It’s understandable why. Would you willingly vote for someone you knew was running on a campaign bought and paid for by the state?
The Campaign Spending Commission (CSC) would be responsible for determining which candidates are approved for public funding. This raises serious ethical concerns and potential conflicts of interest. When a government body decides who can access campaign resources, it opens the door to favoritism and bias. The CSC would have the ultimate authority, effectively giving them one of the largest voices in the election process.
Need I remind you that the Governor appoints the members of the CSC into their roles? CSC oversight on a scheme like this can easily turn into a power dynamic where political favor can influence funding decisions. Candidates may feel pressured to align with the interests of the commission rather than their constituents, should they be approved at all. Such conflict erodes the already fragile trust in our electoral system and compromises the integrity of the democratic process.
One of the most egregious aspects of this bill is its reliance on taxpayer funds to support political campaigns. This proposal mandates that citizens finance candidates they may not support or believe in. As libertarians, we assert that individuals should have the right to choose where their political donations go. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund any political campaigns; why should someone’s hard-earned money be used to promote candidates or ideologies they oppose?
We cherish the idea of voluntary association and the free market. Allowing candidates to rely on public funding diminishes the influence of private contributions, which serve as a crucial indicator of grassroots support. If candidates know they can depend on government funds to run their campaigns, they will be less inclined to connect with constituents and seek support from their communities. This lays the groundwork for a political landscape where candidates are more beholden to bureaucrats than to the very voters they are supposed to represent.
The establishment of public financing systems leads to increased bureaucracy. Government programs are notorious for their inefficiency, and this one will be no different. The bill states:
“Candidates who choose to participate
in the State's comprehensive public funding program established by this
Act, after obtaining a minimum of $5 donations from voters, would be
barred from soliciting, accepting, or using contributions from any source
other than the program's public funds.“
The more layers of government oversight we add, the more cumbersome and ineffective the process becomes. Red tape would stifle the competition this bill claims to promote.
Proponents of public financing argue that it levels the playing field and reduces the influence of wealthy donors. However, this view overlooks the reality that the best way to ensure fair competition is to promote an open marketplace of ideas. State financing does not eliminate the influence of money; it shifts it from private donors to the government. Voters should have the ultimate authority to support candidates they believe in, and this alone should be the determining factor of a fair election.
Help Us Oppose These Bills:
Take action by following the steps:
Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: SB51. Keep an eye out for its house companion, because it hasn't been introduced yet.
Join Our Team!
You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii! Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support. And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty.
Comments