There is substantial evidence at hand to conclude that Missouri's 1992 gubernatorial primaries are already under way. In recent days, charges and countercharges have occurred between campaign workers of the two leading Republican candidates for governor: Secretary of State Roy Blunt and Attorney General Bill Webster. The argument has been about money, which everyone's grandmother warned was the root of all evil and was the minting handiwork of the devil. Well, Granny was certainly correct about the inherent evil of money when it comes to election campaigns, and that's what caused to ruckus between the Blunt and Webster people. They, of course, will not be the only folks quarreling over the root of all evil before the primaries end 14 months from now.

The intraparty bickering was triggered the other day when Mr. Blunt addressed a newspaper editors' meeting at the Lake of the Ozarks. The secretary's speech was about ethics, or more particularly his ethics during next year's campaign for governor. Since Blunt hasn't formally announced his intention to file for governor (he can't legally file until next year), we assume it was his expected gubernatorial campaign since he hasn't mentioned an interest in any other office that we know about.

Blunt told state news executives that, despite any rules to the contrary, he didn't intend to accept campaign contributions from certain potential donors and furthermore he was going to limit gifts from another group of potential donors. Reading his proposed "code of conduct" had to have been something of a shock to observers in this state who have seen statewide candidates for public office accept contributions from anyone and everyone, including organized crime leaders. Most politicians have never been reluctant to accept any kind of cash, as long as it was hard, on the theory that money regardless of taint buys needed and necessary votes.

In both of his races for secretary of state, Blunt limited single contributions to $5,000. To the uninitiated that may sound like a lot of money to one candidate from one sugar daddy, but in these days of inflated costs and television commercial overcharging, donors almost have to cough up at least twice Blunt's twice figure just to trigger a glint in the candidate's eye. No sooner did Blunt finish his ethics policy speech then up popped one of Mr. Webster's campaign directors to accuse the speaker of duplicity and policy reversal.

Well, Missourians get the point: the campaign hasn't officially started and already candidates are arguing about money, how they intend to accept and collect it, and even how they intend to spend it. One could almost assume that there were few regulations or statutes about the honey of politics: campaign contributions and how they are gathered and disbursed. And one's assumption would, unfortunately, be perfectly correct. The public has little to say about this through restrictive and enlightened legislation, and so a public process is taken over by a handful of candidates and administered in the way they see fit --- and to hell with the 5 million citizens of the state who are supposedly being served by being ignored by the candidates as they seek campaign financing.

Anyone who believes this is the way democracies are supposed to work hasn't read much about America's founding fathers and what they had in mind more than two centuries ago.

In this spring's session of the General Assembly, 68 bills were introduced in both the House and Senate having to do with elections. Of this number, 12 sought to place some kind of limit or restriction on campaign contributions and expenditures, and most were perfectly sensible and logical, not to mention needed. Of the 12, not a single one was passed; some didn't even get out of committee.

It seems logical to infer from all this that many of our elected officials are not unduly concerning themselves with the absence of ethical standards in public elections. They must believe it's acceptable for candidates for high office to accept unlimited cash gifts from anyone at all, whether private citizens just interested in good government (could you name even one?) or companies, special interest groups and fast-buck promoters (we can name dozens).

Missourians need to know that many corporations and special interest groups, in anticipation of next year's primary elections, have already made plans to contribute to the various candidates they think will do them the most good. Not only do these future donors know to whom they will give, many already know how much they will give. This figure is based on the amount of money it will require to get the candidate's attention and his or her undying appreciation.

In the meantime, the public assumes that no one is paying attention to next year's campaigns and elections and that citizens have some protection from abuses in the system. Unfortunately, the public is wrong on both counts.