MISSOURI WATCH: IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY

The transformation of politics and political campaigns from Bill Proxmire to Bill Clinton can almost be measured in millions of light years. Few readers will recall the first Bill, a former Wisconsin senator who today would be viewed as an anachronistic relic who refused to take contributions from anyone. s for the second Bill, we recognize that despite his re-election last November, his campaign money-raising efforts have made him a less effective president, suspected by many of his constituents of violating if not the letter at least the intent of the election laws of a nation he must now govern.

In Missouri, the transformation of state politics from Forrest Smith to Mel Carnahan is equally as dramatic and proportionately as disturbing. When he sought the office of governor in 1948, Smith had no private fortune to back his campaign and, quite frankly, it never occurred to him to use his candidacy as a means of securing large cash amounts to assure his success at the polls. A campaign adviser sought to supplement Smith's campaign fund, which never exceeded $100,000 at any time, by asking rural newspapers editors to run free advertisements for the candidate. Smith credited this tactic with his victory at the polls. Forty-four years later, when Carnahan and Bill Webster were battling for the office once held by Smith, the amount of money raised and spent had increased more than $5,000,000.

From Proxmire to Clinton and from Smith to Carnahan, the noble notion of a representative democracy in the United States has literally disappeared from the land. We are awash in a sea of cash that threatens to inundate the very principles of our republic, affecting not only the leaders we chose but the way our political systems serve their constituents. The one indisputable fact to emerge from this transformation is that, contrary to the plans put forth by the founding fathers, state and federal elections are increasingly determined not on the basis of leadership or proposals or remedies but on the amount of money candidates are able to raise.

When talking about money, we're not speaking of amounts candidates are able to raise at sponsored dinners or by mail. We're now talking millions of dollars: minimums of $3 million to run for governor of Missouri; $5 million to run for U.S. senator from Missouri; $50 to $100 million for president. The cost of last year's presidential and congressional campaigns reached $2 billion, and at this point, no one can accurately guess now much more will be heaped on the next election's cost but logic dictates it will be much higher, perhaps even doubling.

Every time an opinion poll is taken, Americans express their displeasure with their governments, but it is seldom noted that John Q. Public's dissatisfaction increases incrementally with the distance of capitals. Invariably citizens express more confidence in local and county officials than those residing in the state Capitol, while voicing less and less trust in those operating in Washington. Common sense would dictate that local officials, whose warts can be much more closely inspected, would be less popular than senators or presidents. Common sense also would tell us that part of this distrust of the leaders of our state and federal governments stems from the methods employed in their campaigns. The corruption of our campaign systems has eroded the trust Americans once had in their state and national leaders. To take this honesty a step further, not only is public distrust understandable, unfortunately it is warranted.

The promises of politicians to repair the present system are as meaningless as the babbling of an infant. Bill Clinton can shake hands a thousand times with Newt Gingrich over an agreement to bring democratic restoration to America, but these words lack the sincerity of a used car salesman who is in debt to his bookie. Neither Clinton nor Gingrich can meet their promises because the careers of their followers would be jeopardized. There are still Democrats who, unlike Clinton, will seek public office again. Kit Bond has been preparing to seek re-election since his current term began five years ago, and quite realistically he is not prepared to support any reform that would give adversaries an equal shot at a job he relishes. Al Gore is not about to endorse a plan which would give his anticipated opponents in 2000 a level playing field.

Changing the rules will not be easy. Most opinion surveys report John Q. Public objects violently to picking up the tab for any Tom, Dick or Harry to run for public office, although a poll taken after last year's campaign debacle by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent favored public election financing. Much public disfavor could be eliminated if a system were devised that would limit the costs of federal elections, and despite court rulings that have served to hamper this method, properly drawn legislation could eliminate many judicial reservations. Because so many of us are disturbed, even frightened, by the present system, it is possible to predict voters would support a plan that cost no more than the preservation of the spotted owl or tax incentives for speculators. A pledge to cut federal expenditures to finance congressional and presidential campaigns would gain a whole new chorus of supporters.

This would particularly be true if federal and state reforms provided for limited but free use of the public's airwaves and restrictions in the size of campaign budgets. Such a plan has been proposed in Missouri (H.B. 407) and there are several similar ones resting unnoticed on congressional calendars. There are no efforts to enact these changes because the public has not voiced its approval. Continued silence only implies continued indifference. Unless you have demanded remedial action by your state and federal representatives, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.