Do Missourians have any idea how much was spent in this year's primary and general election campaigns to win their votes? Does anyone realize that more than $4 for every man, woman and child in the state was spent on campaigns for only five statewide offices in the August and November elections? Do citizens feel uncomfortable knowing that more than $19 million was spent in two campaigns to win offices with salaries that range from $37,000 to $87,000 annually?

According to figures released the other day, with one final report still to be received, statewide office candidates spent $19,408,914 in an effort to win the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer and attorney general. The last report of spending by both parties' candidates for these offices will increase these totals, some rather substantially, and the final figures will be several million dollars higher.

Thoughtful Missourians, concerned about the influence of money in today's political climate, have reason to be worried. No longer is democracy open to those who cannot qualify by having bank accounts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars. The need for such large sums can be traced to the high cost of television advertising, which everyone involved in politics says is absolutely essential today, and the high cost of specialized experts in the fields of campaign strategy, media advertising and fund-raising. These two components take virtually 90 cents out of every $1 raised in today's campaigns.

Not only are candidates required to spend huge sums of money for campaign costs, they are also required to spend virtually all of their campaign moments in the pursuit of large contributions. Some candidates for statewide office spent eight hours a day, five days a week doing nothing but telephoning potentially large contributors. Instead of devising governmental programs and meeting voters throughout the state, these candidates have become little more than fund-raisers for their campaigns, soliciting funds from casual acquaintances and even persons they never heard of, literally begging for the cash to finance a viable campaign effort.

Incomplete report totals now show that more than $12.6 million was spent in the primary and general campaigns for governor. Contrast this figure to the $4.3 million that was spent for the same office just four years ago. Of this figure, $9.5 million was spent in heated primary contests in both parties.

The same schedule shows that more than $1.7 million was spent in the primary and general campaigns for the office of lieutenant governor. In 1980, only $512,453 was spent in both campaigns for this office. Despite the fact that voters approved a proposal to increase the duties of this office, the truth is that it is a constitutional anachronism, a needless political appendage that was added in the 19th century. The only legitimate reason for having the office is in the event of the death of the governor. And yet more than $1.7 million was raised and spent for an office that has virtually no power and renders almost no service to the 5.1 million citizens of this state.

This year's two campaigns for the office of attorney general were even worse. With the final total expected to go much higher, we already know that $3.6 million was spent in the primary and general campaigns for an office that should be above petty politics and fiscal connections. The state's attorney general performs numerous duties that should be free of political encumbrances, yet candidates for this office are required to spend weeks and months soliciting money from potential contributors who are also potential beneficiaries of the office's perquisites.

The same can be said for the office of state treasurer. The average citizen has little interest in such an office, since its principal function is to deposit and invest tax collections. Those who are most interested in the office are bankers and money management corporations, and guess who are always the largest contributors to candidates for this office? If you said bankers and money management corporations, you're getting the hang of how politics works.

Skeptics might respond by noting that money has always talked in politics. Indeed it has. Money has been the honey of politics since the first election was held. The difference is that today's campaigns require huge sums of money, as opposed to a few paltry thousands just a few elections ago. Before the enlightened age of television advertising, it was possible to run a gubernatorial campaign in this state for a few hundred thousand. We elected candidates who, only a couple of decades ago, raised less than $500,000 to run both their primary and general campaigns. Three decades ago, we elected candidates for governor who raised not much more than $100,000 for the two campaigns. We elected some candidates for governor back in the 1930s who raised no more than $25,000.

The problem attached to these horrendous figures of today is that they eliminate the rank-and-file citizen from the electoral process. A voter who knows his contribution is only a drop in the bucket to the millions being sought by his candidate will soon, if not already, elect not to give anything. There is a truism in politics that support and votes follow the money, or put another way, citizens support candidates to whom they have given cash. If this cash cow dries up, so does the rank-and-file interest in who is elected, simply because the average voter recognizes that he is no longer a player in the political process. That role is being taken over, in more and more campaigns, by the high rollers, the wealthy, the persons who have something to gain from the political favors that emanate from Jefferson City.

The vast sums of money now being raised and spent in political campaigns will eventually tarnish the system until it loses all public trust and confidence. When that happens, the citizens of Missouri will literally abdicate their power to those with the power to influence by virtue of their wealth and access to large amounts of cash.

This is not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

~