The pool of taxpayer money set aside to help finance Hawai'i election campaigns is bigger than ever, but most of it has been left sitting in the bank.

Millions of dollars are now available, but few candidates want the money because it's tied to spending restrictions that are widely seen as a recipe for defeat.

"It's pretty simple: If you want to be at a competitive disadvantage in a race, that's the way to do it," said Honolulu campaign consultant Andy Winer. "Candidates who have tried it over the years have just got hammered."

Only five of the 182 candidates who ran in this month's general election requested taxpayer money to supplement their campaigns, although a few more are expected to apply before the Dec. 7 deadline.

Just one candidate who received public money was elected: freshman Maui County Councilman Michael Victorino, who ran for an open seat against a little-known opponent.

Victorino qualified for $7,700 in public money, ran a campaign that relied largely on meeting directly with voters, and won 70 percent of the vote.

"I still believe you have to get out there and walk the streets," he said. "People appreciate when you come by and talk story with them."

Candidates can receive up to 30 percent of their campaign cash from the Hawai'i Election Campaign Fund, which is supported by $2 designations that residents make on their state income tax returns. The $2 comes off their tax liability.

To qualify for the money, candidates also must raise donations from supporters to show they're serious. But they must agree to cap total spending at levels that critics say are far below what's realistically needed to win.

$5.6 MILLION

The state campaign fund now contains more than $5.6 million, and generated more than $160,000 in interest last year. The fund also took in more than $500,000 in fines and penalties paid by politicians and their supporters who violated campaign spending laws.

But candidates were awarded a total of less than $75,000 for this year's primary and general elections combined — the lowest total in 14 years. The $47,000 awarded for the primary was the lowest amount in 22 years.

The system was conceived during the 1978 state Constitutional Convention, amid post-Watergate cynicism about entrenched power-brokers and campaigns driven by special interest money.

The goal was to encourage grassroots participation by creating an alternative financing mechanism that would provide access to underdogs and ordinary citizens.

'PEOPLE DON'T USE IT'

But nearly three decades later, the system is seen as a failure by most political insiders — and by clean-government activists.

"You don't get enough to really win an election," said Ira Rohter, a University of Hawai'i political science professor and chairman of Hawai'i Clean Elections. "It hasn't been beefed up to make any sense, and the proof is in the pudding, because people don't use it."

And in the pragmatic, results-driven world of electoral politics, the restrictions tied to public financing can be the kiss of death. A candidate's ideas, views and accomplishments are important, but it can take serious cash to get a message out.

"If you're going out and trying to get support from people who are wired into the political world, and you tell them that you're public-financing a campaign, they'll laugh at you," Winer said. "They'll think you're not serious."

The average amount spent by the 12 winning state Senate candidates in 2004 was more than $73,000, for example, state Campaign Spending Commission records show.

But the top spending limit that would still allow a candidate to receive public financing this year was less than $47,000.

Spending totals for this month's election are not yet available. But average spending for 2004 House races also far exceeded the amounts available through public financing, state records show.

The average winning House candidate spent more than $44,000, while the average loser spent more than $21,000.

The public-financing caps allow candidates to spend from $12,000 to $20,000 on House races, depending on the number of voters in the district.

The Legislature has not updated the caps since 1995. But the value of money allowed by the caps has been steadily eroded by inflation and the rising cost of campaigning.

Taxpayer interest in paying for campaigns seems to have steadily plummeted as well. Fewer than two out of every 10 state taxpayers now check boxes on their returns each year to earmark $2 for the system.

Campaign Spending Commission director Barbara Wong said she will ask lawmakers next year to raise the spending caps and the amounts of public money that candidates can receive.

NEW SYSTEM SOUGHT

Meanwhile, Hawai'i Clean Elections is pushing for a new campaign finance system, which would provide much more public money for candidates but cap private donations.

Wong said such an overhaul would probably require wide-ranging public support to win approval.

"It has the potential to get quite expensive, and I think it's really something that the public needs to ask for," Wong said. "It can't be something that the Campaign Spending Commission asks for, because it involves dollars, and the pie is only so big for the government to divvy up. So it has to be something that's driven by the public requesting it."

The current system first took effect statewide in 1980. One of the first politicians to use it was a then little-known Democrat named Rod Tam, who received $100 and lost his race for the House.

"I ran out of money," Tam said last week. "It was just too limited."

He never sought public campaign financing again, and instead raised his own money by selling kiawe-grilled chicken.

Others have tapped the system with more success. Former Gov. Ben Cayetano received more than $300,000 in public financing to boost his successful 1994 campaign, for example.

But the system proved disastrous for Gov. Linda Lingle in 1998.

Her campaign exceeded the spending cap in the primary, had to return $136,000 in public funds, and suffered some bad publicity.

Lingle abided by the cap in the general election and sharply limited her spending toward the end of the race — even though she was no longer required to.

But Cayetano, who had not sought public funds that year, campaigned more aggressively in those final days and narrowly won re-election.

Lingle did not seek public money for her winning 2002 campaign or her successful re-election campaign this year.

She said she advises other Republicans not to apply for public money because the spending caps tend to put them at a disadvantage — especially when big labor unions use their resources to independently assist Democrats.

"And so our guys, to compete on a level playing field, need to have a lot more money," Lingle said.

Reach Johnny Brannon at jbrannon@honoluluadvertiser.com.