MISSOURI COMMENTARY: TO WIN ELECTIONS: MONEY, ORGANIZATION

The results of the 1998 congressional elections will depend primarily on two factors: money and voter turnout.

If the recent congressional race in Staten Island is a portent, the Republicans will outspend the Democrats significantly. The Democrats have two major fund-raising dilemmas: their own debt of over $15 million, and a flood of "soft" money going to GOP candidates.

President Bill Clinton is criss-crossing the country in an effort to reduce his party's deficit. Some of the debt was created by contributions that had to be returned and by legal fees ($8 million) relating to the 1996 campaign. It's a lot easier for a candidate to raise money before an election he is certain to win. That was Clinton in 1996. It's not as easy to raise money after the election of a lame-duck president. This is Clinton in 1997.

In addition to the time and effort that Clinton has to spend rattling his tin cup, there is the psychological drain on the president having to explain time and again how awful the fund raising process is and how much he dislikes devoting so much of his time hustling for money.

Then there are the changes in the way soft money -- political contributions made from corporate or union treasuries -- is being allocated by donors.

Prior to the 1996 elections, corporations gave a lot of money to Republicans, but also gave large hunks of PAC and soft money to incumbent congressional Democrats. Why? The Democrats, so it would seem, would always control the House of Representatives and, therefore, it was a wise precaution to maintain relationships with the party that would be in power.

For example, in the 1994 campaign, corporate PAC's gave $25 million to Democrats, while corporate trade associations gave an additional $23 million. The Democrats lost control in the 1994 election and in 1996 corporate PAC's dropped the amount given to Democrats to $15 million while corporate trade associations lowered their Democratic contributions to $16 million.

In contrast, labor increased its contributions to Democrats from $32 million in 1994 to $36 million in 1996.

The level of corporate giving will tilt further in favor of the GOP in 1998. The pressure on unions for more Democratic political money will intensify. There is, however, no way that labor can ever match the corporate contributions.

In the Staten Island congressional race, the Republicans outspent the Democrats by at least two to one. The Republican National Committee's contributions were largely spent on ads attacking the Democrat without mentioning the name of the GOP candidate. That's the key. A candidate can mention his/her name and ask for a vote, but his spending is usually subject to limits. "Independent" ads that do not mention the candidates but vociferously attack his or her opponent are not subject to spending caps. All of the spending limits in the federal law thus turn out to be virtually meaningless. If unlimited soft money can be used so easily to circumvent the old spending rules, we end up with a virtual "open season" on campaign spending.

The cost of running for Congress escalates and reflects the no-holds-barred style of contemporary campaigns. The average cost of running a winning race for the House of Representatives in 1996 was $680,000. Twenty years ago it was $82,000. Last year the average cost of a winning campaign for the U.S. Senate was $3,775,000. Twenty years ago it was $609,000.

Moving from fund raising to turnout, which party will succeed in getting out the vote in 1998? In the recent Virginia gubernatorial race, the turnout was alarmingly low -- slightly better in New Jersey. Looking ahead, the Republicans are worried about whether disenchanted conservatives will stay home and Democrats are worried about black and Hispanic turnout. Once again, focusing on the Virginia gubernatorial race, the black turnout this year was down from 17 percent to 12 percent a few years ago.

Who will make the best effort to get voters to the polls? It takes planning and organization to turn out the vote. It doesn't just happen. The Christian Coalition is good at it. Labor, in selected urban areas, is good at it. Black organizations, in selected urban areas, can be good at it.

It takes an issue or a cause to turn people on. What will the issues be in 1998? Will affirmative action motivate the Christian Coalition? Will it do the same the black America? What's the labor issue for 1998?

As of now, it looks like a less than exhilarated electorate in 1998. The voters seem more turned off than tuned in. When things are quiet, as they are for at least the moment, the experts say it's an incumbent's year.

~Tom Eagleton of St. Louis is a former U.S. senator from Missouri.