It’s no shock that candidates for the Hawaii Legislature love the income tax cut approved last session, or that most say the high cost of living is the biggest issue facing their constituents.

But it might come as a surprise that the vast majority of them favor major reforms in state government — including proposals that have been consistently shot down at the State Capitol.

These include a full public campaign financing option for candidates, statewide citizens initiatives, legislative term limits and a ban on campaign contributions during sessions.

A lot of them even support requiring state legislators to adhere to the Sunshine Law, which would force them to discuss the people’s business more openly instead of behind closed doors.

There are 148 legislative candidates on the primary ballot, and so far 92 have responded to our survey. You could argue that the 56 other candidates would be less reform-friendly, since they have chosen so far to ignore our invitation to explain why people should vote for them.

The scofflaws include 10 of 12 incumbent senators on the ballot and 24 of 47 incumbent representatives.

Still, the extent to which the 92 legislative candidates who did respond support these reforms is noteworthy.

We warmed them up with an easy question: Would they vote for good-government proposals even if it meant going against the legislative leadership that consistently thwarts them?

Seventy-one said yes, no one said no, and 21 demonstrated their acumen for politics by responding without answering the question.

Of course it’s easy to say that during a campaign and a lot harder when their legislative fortunes are at stake. We just wanted to get them on the record regarding their independence, because legislators have been known to crumble under pressure from leaders.

As one candidate put it, “I can firmly say here, and this will be kept online forever, that I will indeed go against leadership in our Legislature if it must be done for the greater good of our district and state.”

We won’t be losing track of this quote in case that guy gets elected.

Now to the tougher questions:

Do you support comprehensive public financing of elections for candidates who choose to participate?

As many respondents noted, this would be the proverbial leveler of the playing field because right now incumbents typically enjoy huge financial advantages over challengers.

Fifty-two candidates said yes outright, and another 17 said maybe, depending on how the financing worked.

Twenty said no, with several citing the prospect of taxpayers being forced to financially back candidates they may not support. Three did not respond.

Among Republicans, 11 said yes, five said maybe and 10 said no. 

Hawaii is the only Western state without a statewide citizens initiative process. Do you support such a process?

Allow the citizenry to go over the heads of the Legislature? Every session such blasphemy is proposed, and every session it gets zero traction.

This one got slightly more support among Q&A candidates, with 54 saying yes. It also got a little more opposition, with 24 saying no. Twelve said maybe and two did not respond.

Among Republicans, 18 said yes, three maybe and five no.

Just about everyone expressed concern that a citizens initiative process could be co-opted by well-monied special interests. But the supporters said the benefits of giving more power to the people outweigh the risks.

After all, some noted, those special interests already seem to be throwing their weight around effectively, and it might be harder to sway thousands of voters than a handful of politicians.

Thanks to their campaign war chests and name familiarity, incumbents are almost always reelected in Hawaii legislative races. Should there be term limits for state legislators, as there are for the governor’s office and county councils?

This is a landslide with 61 candidates saying yes, 22 saying no, eight saying maybe and one not responding.

Serving in the Legislature shouldn’t be a lifelong career, said many supporters of term limits. But a lot of them also stressed the importance of allowing state lawmakers time to learn the ropes and make a real difference, proposing longer tenures than the eight-year limits already established for the governor and county council members.

A lot of the opponents buried their heads in the sand and claimed we already have term limits — they’re called elections. But the fact is that most of the turnover in the Legislature occurs when lawmakers voluntarily move on, not when they are ejected by voters.

Perhaps not surprising considering their perennial minority status in the islands, Republicans were very big on term limits with 23 saying yes, two no and one maybe.

What will you do to ensure accountability at the Legislature? Do you support ideas such as requiring the Sunshine Law to apply to the Legislature or banning campaign contributions during session?

This set of questions was worded less directly, so it comes as no surprise that the declined-to-say numbers were appreciably higher.

Still, the candidates generally remained in reformist mode.

Applying the Sunshine Law to legislators is tricky, because there are 76 of them and their annual session ends after less than four months. Still, their secretive way of doing things often doesn’t sit well with the public and has been known to lead to criminal corruption.

Forty-five candidates said they were completely ready to open Capitol curtains and let the sunshine in, with some contending that legislative sessions should be lengthened at the same time.

Fifteen others said no, 14 said maybe and 18 didn’t bite on the question.

As for banning in-session contributions, 53 said yes, nine no and 30 did not say one way or the other.

A few candidates erroneously said such contributions are already prohibited, but in truth only fundraising events are currently banned during sessions. People can still give money to candidates during session and many do.

Again here, Republicans are big-time reformers. Applying the Sunshine Law to the Legislature was backed by 17, with four saying no, one maybe and four not responding. As for banning in-session contributions, 17 again said yes, three said no and six didn’t respond.

No Shortage Of Ideas

By now you may have noticed this column is not naming names. We are trying to be mindful that, under the federal tax code, as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization we are prohibited from endorsing or opposing specific candidates. We don’t want our support of reform initiatives to be taken as backing any candidate in particular.

But the information is out there in individual Q&As if you want to consider the candidates’ stands on reform issues. You can link to them via our full ballot or our searchable Candidates Q&A section.

If you’re looking for clues as to who doesn’t want reform, watch for references like, “The Legislature has already done so much” and “We need to focus on the existing laws” and the aforementioned “We already have term limits.”

For that matter, maybe make a note of who hasn’t bothered with our Q&As — we’ve published all the legislative candidates who had responded as of Saturday.

Meanwhile, here are a few additional ideas from the reform-minded candidates on topics that we didn’t ask about but were happy to hear about:

— Allow no gifts from lobbyists, “not even a donut or a cheap ballpoint pen.”

— Cap the amount of money that can be rolled into future campaigns.

— Prohibit elected officials from regifting their campaign funds to other candidates.

— Promote civic education in the schools and wider communities so that voters understand the political system. Engage them at events featuring child care, free food and “joy.”

— Limit the time that officials can serve as legislative leaders and committee chairs.

— Make the attorney general and the Board of Education members elective instead of appointive positions.

— Increase the resources of the Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission.

— Ban active-status lawyers from leadership roles in the Legislature so they can’t hide behind attorney-client privileges.

— Limit the number of bills each legislator can introduce.

— Establish a “cooling off” period before former legislators can become lobbyists.

— Devise a “real-time” system for the public to track campaign contributions and expenditures as they happen.

Finally, one candidate — an incumbent, even — expressed the fear that Civil Beat’s interest in government reform might be “waning.”

We categorically deny that, and instead share the sentiment of another reform-minded candidate who said, “I am committed to pushing for these bills every year until they become law.”