Not in recent history have Missourians been forced to undergo the kind of clueless, listless, issueless campaign for governor that we have seen thus far this year. This has been a campaign without direction, public regard or any discernible effort to discuss some of the extremely important issues facing our state as we prepare to enter a new century. One could even conclude, from the absence of serious discussion, that the state had no problems to confront, no future to decide and no policies that called out for change and reform.

Few seem to have noted the lack of serious dialogue with the public by the two major candidates: incumbent Mel Carnahan and challenger Margaret Kelly. Those who follow whatever news is provided by the media could conclude the most important difference between Mr. Carnahan and Mrs. Kelly is the amount of cash each has been able to beg to wage a last-minute television blitzkrieg between now and election day.

Media coverage of the Carnahan-Kelly contest has thus far focused primarily on the fact that the incumbent governor, as expected, has collected more money than his less known challenger. Headlines proclaim that Carnahan is "winning four to one" over Kelly, but the news is not about creative ideas on how to govern the state for the next four years but about the amount of campaign cash on hand. The implication of this is clear: the candidate with more money wins on November 5.

Most of us grew up believing campaigns were not about the ability of candidates to raise money but about their ideas, innovations, proposals and plans for a state with 5.3 million residents. That's the way it used to be, although in all fairness, it must be noted that Missouri has often been forced to endure campaigns that were little more than personality contests and the public images presented by candidates in the race. We recall contests a few years ago in which one of the candidates was described as being "a typical St. Louis politician" and another as "a hoosier in a cheap suit."

Missouri once elected its governor based on the familiarity of the name. If a candidate had been around long enough and if his name sounded familiar to uninformed voters, his chances of winning were automatically good. As recently as 1964 an unknown candidate named Kennedy carried a surprising number of counties in the state treasurer's race.

Is it better to elect important state officials on the basis of their familiarity or their ability to raise enough money to buy last-minute TV saturation? There is no right answer to this question, simply because neither should be the basis for winning high office. Missourians are selecting a leader, not a fund raiser or a household name. Missourians are looking for someone with innovative ideas, an understanding of how to administer a huge political jurisdiction.

There are more than enough issues, and problems, facing the state to fill this year's campaign when it started weeks ago. Not necessarily in order of importance, here are a few that not only should be discussed but must be resolved some time over the next four years.

1. Missouri has yet to resolve how to end the enormously expensive desegregation programs in the state's two urban areas. Although we are approaching the $3 billion mark in deseg spending, all of it coming from state-taxpayer generated income, the problems facing the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts are enormous, stemming at least in part from the gradual economic decline of these cities and the refusal of residents to pay still higher school taxes. These problems will not be resolved simply by ending state deseg payments, but Missouri has a vital stake in how they will be settled and the next governor must be the leader in the final solutions. Have you heard anything during the campaign about this issue?

2. Despite promises of "tax cuts" from both candidates, Missouri is already experiencing a shortfall of federal funds to finance the largest, most expensive function of Jefferson City: welfare for the poor and needy. This shortfall is going to increase over the next six years, at least. If the state is forced to supply more and more funds to operate a department that currently takes 30 percent of the total budget, where is the money coming from? We presume that both candidates realize that if you reduce revenue by cutting taxes and if essential programs require even more funding in the future, something serious is about to happen. Have you heard anything during the campaign about this issue?

3. Although we are spending record amounts of state dollars on public education in grades K-12, we are certainly not getting record scores on achievement tests. It seems that the more funds expended, the dumber a large number of students become. Not all of this can be traced to public education, but, unfortunately, the state retains the responsibility of resolution, hopefully with increased responsibility from the parents. The state must eventually assume a greater role in correcting educational voids through new, innovative, expanded programs or future generations will be consigned a future of frustration and failure. Have you heard anything during the campaign about this issue?

4. Missouri is building more and more state prisons, and with the increase in prisoners comes the essential need to change lives and reverse criminal behavior. A corrections program with any chance of success has to begin before a felon is admitted to prison and continue after his release. Despite the millions being spent to protect the public by building new prison cells, new programs must be found before citizens can feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods. Have you heard anything during the campaign about this issue?

These, and far too many other problems, await Missourians over the next four years. It is a tragedy they are being ignored by those who must lead in finding solutions.

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