Nearly lost amidst the widespread talk of corruption at the state and county level is the fact that the Hawaii State Legislature took meaningful steps last year toward addressing such misconduct and restoring public trust in government.

Over 10% of all bills passed last year involved “good government” proposals. These new laws, while perhaps not the topic of everyday conversation, will reduce opportunities for corruption and enhance public confidence in government.

Among other reforms, the Legislature took a significant step in prohibiting lobbyists from making or promising donations to legislators and candidates during the legislative session.

The Legislature concluded that “restricting lobbyists from donating, or promising to later donate, to an elected official during a legislative session and the five days before and after the session will further the goal of reducing undue influence and its appearance.”

Why is this a big deal?

Lobbyists making campaign contributions to lawmakers during the legislative session, while simultaneously pushing legislative agendas, can create an impression that they’re attempting to acquire unfair influence or reward certain actions. Prohibiting such contributions eliminates the appearance of an implicit quid pro quo.

This reform sends a clear message that external financial interests are not allowed to have a disproportionate influence during the legislative session. That lawmaking and policy discussion should take place on a level playing field. That all voices should have a fair chance to be heard.

It reinforces the principle that elected officials should value and listen to their constituents, instead of being swayed by financial contributions from powerful lobbying groups.

Calls to prohibit all contributions during the legislative session are likely to be heard this year. While an understandable proposal, it may be unnecessary.

Act 128 is narrowly and prudently tailored to restrict in-session contributions only from lobbyists: people who, by definition, are paid to influence policymaking. In contrast, most people probably don’t care if a legislator or a candidate receives a campaign donation from a neighbor or relative.

Should more be done? Of course.

This year, efforts to tighten up the definition of “lobbyist” and expand the capacity to enforce these new laws should be considered.

Further, expanding the prohibition to bar in-session donations by lobbyists’ client companies — the ones paying lobbyists to advocate on behalf of their interests — should also be considered. This is a smart and reasonable extension of the new law.

Do the Legislature’s efforts eliminate the influence of money in politics? No.

But it is a significant step in the right direction and a positive example for other states grappling with campaign finance issues and influence peddling. And the overall effort creates a sound foundation to build on.

As retired Judge Dan Foley said last year in connection to overall ethics reform, “The work is not done. There’s more work to do. But I’m confident if we continue to work together, we’ll get that done.”