MISSOURI COMMENTARY: WHY THE CLASS OF '74 EXITS THE SENATE

Three of the more senior Democrats are not seeking re-election after four terms in the U.S. Senate. Had the three decided to attempt to stay on, chances are that at least two would have been elected: Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., and Wendell Ford, D-Ky. John Glenn, D-Ohio, would have faced an uphill battle.

Each had different personal reasons for bowing out, but there was one common theme in their decision-making processes: profound distaste for contemporary campaign fund-raising.

Bumpers, Ford and Glenn all came to the Senate in 1974. That was a strong Democratic year. It was the "Watergate Year" as the elected followed closely on the heels of President Nixon's resignation.

The Federal Election Act -- which passed in the wake of Watergate and imposed limits on campaign spending -- was a year old in 1974. Its numerous loopholes and shortcomings were not yet evident. The Act was deemed to be operative and functional because Buckley vs. Valeo had not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. Buckley -- announced in 1976 -- was the famous case ruling that money equates to free speech and thus is protected from many types of regulation because of the First Amendment. Money always did some talking in American politics, but after Buckley v. Valeo, money became a loud never-ending shout.

Back in 1974, all three of the senators were elected in landslides in their respective states. Bumpers was a charismatic governor who successfully challenged the powerful Sen. J. William Fullbright in the Democratic primary. Ford likewise was a popular governor. Glenn was a heroic former astronaut.

Each did a fair amount of polling and bought limited amounts of television commercials that sold their own virtues and did not attack their adversaries. The mid-1970s when they entered the Senate were in no way comparable to the late 1990s when they will be leaving. If they have decided to try one more time, each of the three would have had to spend 10 to 12 times what he spent in 1974.

Each would have had to criss-cross the country begging for money. Even senators from politically rich states like California and New York feel compelled to seek funds in other states. Many a travel agency would be thrilled to do the volume of business that would be generated just from handling the airline reservations of all the senators and congresspersons who traverse the country looking for campaign donations.

Bumpers, Ford and Glenn all supported the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill this year. All three agreed that the adoption of campaign spending reform is a long way off. It probably will take an election even more odious than the 1996 campaign to stir the public to demand reform.

For now, the continuous flow of revelations about the 1996 election doesn't seem to arouse public concern. Probably the best explanation is that the public is so turned off by politics that stories about further campaign misdeeds don't make a dent.

Each of the three stated that they simply would not roam the country begging for millions of dollars. Bumpers said, "The thought of going out with my tin cup was revolting to me."

Ford said, "I spent $425,000 to run for the Senate in 1974. If I ran for elect next year, it would cost about $5 million. The money chase was the straw not to seek re-election. I have no doubt that I could have raised the money, but going around across the country didn't sit well with me."

Glenn was on the Senate Committee that just recently concluded its campaign-finance hearings with little or nothing accomplished. Glenn said, "After listening to all of that stuff day after day, it was pretty easy for me to know that I had had it."

Each had additional and different reasons to hang it up. Bumpers commented on the "meanness" of the Senate. Glenn's phrase was that the Senate now suffered from "extreme partisanship" which certainly was not there when he came in 1974. Ford, the guardian of tobacco from Kentucky, found the Senate still to be good at least for tobacco.

After the 1998 elections, new senators will come to the nation's capital from Arkansas, Kentucky, and Ohio. All three will have spent a bundle to get there. The new senators will have learned how "to shake the money tree."

As fresh incumbents they will not favor changing the system that "brings 'em" to Washington. They will soon be "insiders" and as such will want to leave things as they are. They will gripe about it. They may even talk against it. But as incumbents, they will vote to perpetuate the awful process they know versus some "reform" process they don't know. Incumbent senators are for level playing fields -- but only in football.

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