Insert Disclaimer here. I don't have any insider information and I have absolutely no idea whether any laws were broken. This is an editorial comment. They are my own views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Hawaii Democratic Party, my employer, or anyone else or organization.
For a short time, I was a member of the Hawaii Democratic Party State Central Committee. During that admittedly brief period, it seemed to me that various forces were straining to take or keep control of the party. Such factions are not unusual, indeed, I would be surprised if there weren't such differing groups in most parties, the Republican included.
In any case, although it may be an over simplification, I seemed to see two major competing factions. I saw people who worked to reform the party by making it more open, transparent, and responsive to people's needs. On the other hand, there were some who seemed to reflect what is derisively framed and referred to as the "Old Boys."
First, let me reframe these people and refer to them as the First Guard. These were the people who, in some cases, literally fought the political wars that overthrew the deeply corrupt Republican administrations that ran Hawaii up through the 1950s. They opened opportunities to everyone that had been, up to then, controlled by a few Republican, if I may use the phrase, "Old Boys."
The First Guard dealt with very real threats on their lives while courageously moving forward with reforms to, among other areas, education, civil service, and social services. Entire groups of people, who had been denied opportunities due solely to the color of their skin or slant of their eyes now had an open playing field.
However, these very experiences may have formed a world view that, while accurate at the time, appears contrary to the one we currently exist in.
For example, at that time, revealing our weaknesses to the opposition was tantamount to treason. You never revealed anything to anyone outside of your trusted circle. To do so could very well result in people being killed or injured.
But, and I could be wrong, I think we live in different times. It appears the First Guard has become the Old Guard. I think there is a place and time to be open, to admit our mistakes, and to seek the guidance of all who can help so that we can remove the cancer that is eating away at the core of our party.
Yes, there are those outside who oppose the party and will try to use information to do harm. So there will be times when openness is not the best policy (and Lord knows the Hawaii Republican Party certainly isn't totally open). But, I believe, the greater harm is to try to cover up or deny all of our problems in the mistaken hope that they will just go away.
We live in an era of instant communications and fact checking bloggers. Yes, everyone makes innocent mistakes and if that is all it is people will generally see it as that and forgive and forget. And yes, we all have things in our past that we wouldn't want plastered across the Internet (see Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh). But if a mistake is discovered, innocent or not, and we then try to deny, spin, or cover it up, I would contend that it creates the opportunity for even worse damage then if we just admitted the mistake, promised never to do it again, and could show we never did.
Such may be the developing context relating to a national and local situation regarding the movement of money between the states of Rhode Island and Hawai'i.
While there is much smoke, what seems to be clear is the Hawaii Democratic Party donated $5,000 to a primary candidate in Rhode Island. Although I have done no research into this, two things seem to be unusual. First, why is the Hawaii party donating funds to a candidate in Rhode Island? Secondly, if we are to provide funds, why provide it only to one candidate and not other Democrats running for the same office? It would seem at least unethical to choose sides before someone wins the primary election and then goes on to challenge the Republican candidate.
If that's all there was to this story, that's probably where it would have ended.
But what is even curiouser is that, according to the article, a few weeks later, a $6,000 donation came to the Hawaii party from a "mainland donor." This donor seems to be a supporter of the Rhode Island candidate that first received the Hawaii donation and has already given the maximum allowed by law to the candidate. Whether a prosecutor can make the connection between the two donations only a judge and/or jury can say. But it at least raises serious questions as to the timing of the two payments. But instead of dealing with this question head on, the party seems to be giving multiple and perhaps conflicting statements. And the more the party attempts to spin a response, the deeper the hole it seems to dig.
Some Republicans are good at making things appear to be one way when they are actually the opposite. Democrats are not so skilled. In summary, there is at least the appearance of unusual transactions and, I think, as long as the party refuses to get ahead of the story the party will suffer for it. And to me, that is the greater harm - First Guard notwithstanding.
Aloha!
