BEWARE THE RISK OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Campaign finance reform is one of those cyclical topics for lawmaking bodies, elevating itself every few years to a point where legislative action is inevitable. Missouri finds itself at such a point now, with both the House and Senate fostering bills aimed at bringing the financing of campaigns under control. Control, however, is an instrument that should be carefully wielded when it comes to the election of public officials. While we would like to see the public discourse that accompanies campaigns come with a lesser price tag, we see real risks in trying to restrain the communication of political messages.

Without question the public has grown disenchanted with the high cost of political campaigns. Tens of millions of dollars are expended in the chase for some U.S. Senate seats. In the last gubernatorial race in Missouri, more than $10 million was raised by candidates prior to the primary. That is the price of modern campaigning, and obviously there are drawbacks to this from a standpoint of governance. The perception (most often misplaced) is that politicians take office beholden to certain interests. (This is not a new conjecture; years ago, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, sent to the nation's capital from aeronautically affluent Washington, was nicknamed "the senator from Boeing.") In addition, officeholders interested in staying put must spend a considerable amount of their energy in keeping the financial machinery humming, holding fundraisers and seeking campaign contributions.

Generally, our reaction to the most widely voiced plans to reform campaign financing is skepticism. Here are a few reasons.

-- For better or worse, money is a necessary fuel for getting politicians' messages to the public. Calls to limit campaign spending therefore mean placing a limit on speech. Not only is this undesirable, it is probably unconstitutional. In almost any campaign financing system you can dream up, there will always be one candidate with more money to spend than another. In a sense, this is democracy, too; the ability to sell oneself to voters is not far removed from the ability to sell oneself to financial supporters.

-- Political action committees, so-called PACs, are not destructive to the political system. At odds with the opinion of critics who claim these committees exude too much influence, we believe PACs actually draw more people into the political process, allowing individuals of like thinking to pool their contributions for a more significant campaign impact. It is noteworthy, too, that PACs came about as a result of post-Watergate campaign reforms; it is always worth raising an eyebrow when reformers want to reform the reforms.

-- While we don't point fingers in the current Missouri legislative effort to reform campaign financing, there is ingrained a temptation in such an effort to skew the changes in favor of the party directing the reforms. With Democrats in control of the Missouri legislature and the governor's office, and Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress and the White House, it is unsurprising that campaign finance reform has taken on an urgency in Jefferson City and Washington ... just as it will be unsurprising if the reforms accommodate the current majority party.

-- Public financing of campaigns is unacceptable. Funneling political contributions through government treasuries -- like funneling any money through the government -- only means increased bureaucracy and funds being used inefficiently or inappropriately.

In his State of the State address last month, Gov. Mel Carnahan said he favored a campaign finance reform plan that "will reduce the amount of money candidates for office can raise and spend, will reduce the influence of special interest money in the political system, and will change the rules that favor the wealthy." The House and Senate have perfected their bills but have yet to reconcile their differences. The whole process has been hastened by the petition drive of Missourians for Fair Elections, which hopes to put a campaign finance reform issue on the statewide ballot in November. Unlike a nervous legislature, we're willing to let voters have a look at this proposal.

Our preference in keeping elections aboveboard is full financial disclosure, and this law is already in place. Unless the legislature can come up with some means of improving this, such as more thorough enforcement, we urge them to set aside campaign finance reform and get on with other business.