"It's all about money," the late uncrowned king and long-time mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, said in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty. Former congressman and retired chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Tony Coelho, summed it up another way: "The process buys you out."

Whether looking at politics in Jefferson City and Washington from the inside or the outside, the descriptions offered by Daley and Coelho, pretty much tell the story. A story, incidentally, that had its beginnings not at the beginning of our republic but midway through its second century.

In the early days of American politics, members of Congress received no salary or even fixed expenses allowances. Congressmen finally received regular salaries in 1856, and they were hardly befitting elected representatives of a growing, vibrant nation. Until four decades ago, members of the Missouri General Assembly received the munificent salary of $5 per day for their Capitol labors.

The resolution of this haunting question will have to be left to others, but one is unable to escape the paradoxical observation that the higher the salaries paid our elected officials, the higher the spending of public tax dollars goes. Indeed, money has become so pervasive in our political system, that it has become the Golden Rule of Government. In replacing all else, money has even tended to replace the importance of voters, although until historically recent times, it was believed our political parties sought members, aka voters.

Not so today.

The fundamental market for modern political parties is usually not voters. As a number of recent analysts have documented, most citizens possess limited resources, as well as scant information about and interest in politics.

The real market for political parties is defined by major investors, who generally have good and clear reasons for investing to control the state.

Because less than half the eligible voters cast ballots in any election, the investors rule. One need look no farther than Jefferson City for ample evidence of this statement.

Both parties in our state capital have pretended to go through the motions of providing the public something long denied: adequate rules and regulations against the overwhelming power of money in electing candidates and running the day-today activities of state government. After delaying any remedies long after just about everyone else recognized the power of the dollar in running Jefferson City, the General Assembly enacted a law which, purposefully or not, would prove inadequate.

It is hard to believe the framers of the most recent election reform law did not experience prior recognition that the rules they were writing would prove to be something less than adequate. They had little reason to worry, however, because another plan, this one inaugurated from frustration and despair over the condition of politics in Missouri, was coming on the scene and it would be, just about everyone agreed, so stringent that it would be negated by the courts. It didn't take long for a judge to confirm that conclusion.

Thus Missourians, like citizens in just about every other state in the nation, once again find themselves enmeshed in a sea of abstract legalism that ultimately will deny them any chance for electoral change and improvement.

The situation has become so muddied in Missouri as to be incomprehensible. For example, requirements that candidates must spend down campaign funds after each election were followed by some candidates, ignored by others. While some public officials were disposing of their surplus contributions, others were holding on to all of their dollars. The dilemma has yet to be resolved, although at this juncture, it appears the savers have won, while the early birds have lost.

Then, too, consider this serious conundrum. Because the question of how much money can be given to candidates and how much money the candidates can spend is still in limbo, scores of potential candidates are left to speculate on their ability to raise anything resembling needed amounts to wage a reasonable campaign. Virtually every potential Republican gubernatorial candidate, with the notable exception of State Auditor Margaret Kelly, is left with a barren campaign balance that would hardly get them elected county coroner.

In contrast, their expected Democratic opponent, the incumbent governor, has a healthy bank account and is ready for another expensive campaign costing millions of dollars.

How does the average citizen fit into any of this scenario? The sad answer is that he doesn't. The vast majority of voters have limited incomes and are doing all they can to meet a growing list of expenses. They can't be counted on for more than a few dollars when the candidates come calling. This is just another way of saying the average voter is impotent in influencing not only the policies that will be executed in his name, and presumably for his benefit, but also the candidates themselves.

Gov. Carnahan, for example, has recently asked for campaign assistance from officers of a corporation that received a sizable tax write-off gift from the last General Assembly. That bill was signed, as required, by the chief executive of the state. Since the company will benefit to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars over the next few years, its officers are happy to contribute a generous amount of dollars to their benefactors.

This is the same reasoning that made Bill Webster, a former attorney general, the leading campaign spender in the 1992 GOP primary. Lawyers who were recipients of Second In jury Fund appointments were eager to assist their patron saint in the AG's office.

These are the tactics used, whether in Jefferson City or Washington. If you think Bill Clinton, promising to "put people first" has succeeded, then consider his two major accomplishments since taking office: NAFTA and GATT.

The nation's first campaign reform law was proposed in 1904. We have barely progressed in the intervening 91 years.

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