GROUP SEEKS CAMPAIGN REFORM; STATE LAWMAKERS OPPOSE PUBLICLY FINANCED CAMPAIGNS

Money, and lots of it, drive political campaigns.

State lawmakers lament the high cost of election campaigns, but most oppose efforts by the Missouri Alliance for Campaign Reform for public financing.

Missourians don't want tax-funded political campaigns, said state Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett. "They view that as a waste of tax dollars."

But he deplored the enormous expense of running for office. "Political campaigns today are dominated more by money than substance," he said.

More than $9.5 million was raised by Missouri's state representative and senate candidates in the 1996 election cycle compared to $7 million in 1994.

On average, winning Senate candidates each raised more than $181,000 and spent $135,000, according to the Missouri Alliance for Campaign Reform.

On the House side, winning candidates raised a little more than $32,000, on average, and spent about $24,000.

In nearly 90 percent of state Senate and House races, the candidate with the most money won.

"We have a cashocracy rather than a democracy," said Ben Senturia, president of the Missouri Alliance for Campaign Reform.

"Those who have the big bucks have the influence, and those that don't get left out, and people are tired of that," he said.

The coalition, which has offices in St. Louis and Kansas City, believes public financing would clean up the political process.

The coalition involves about 30 organizations, including labor unions, the League of Women Voters of Missouri, and welfare, environmental and church groups.

The alliance is pushing a public-financing plan similar to what Maine voters approved last November.

The Missouri plan would provide public funding for any candidate for the state legislature or statewide office who agrees not to take private campaign money in the primary or general election.

Funding would come from the taxpayers, who would pay an income tax surcharge of 0.6 percent.

Senturia said a taxpayer, on average, would pay between $5 and $10 a year to fund election campaigns.

The money would be put in a trust fund, which would be administered by the state treasurer.

Public funding would range from $10,000 per election for a state representative candidate to $1 million for a gubernatorial candidate. The primary and general elections would count as separate elections.

A candidate could receive more public funding, up to three times the stated limits, in order to keep pace with a privately financed opponent.

Candidates who accept public financing couldn't raise private funds, except for qualifying contributions and limited "seed money."

Seed money could be used by a person who is testing the waters in anticipation of running for office.

Under the plan, candidates would have to receive a certain number of $5, private contributions to qualify for public funding. For a House candidate, the number is 200. For a gubernatorial candidate, the number is 2,000.

The goal is to limit public financing to legitimate candidates, Senturia said.

State Rep. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis, introduced legislation this session to enact the financing plan.

But the bill, which had the support of Bray and 13 other House members, died in committee.

George Christie isn't surprised. He led the successful campaign for the "clean-money" measure in Maine.

Christie said state lawmakers in Maine voted down 40 campaign reform bills over the past 10 years.

Christie said he and other finance-reform proponents ended up going the initiative petition route last year, bypassing the legislature. The tactic worked.

"Now that it is law, legislators have a much more open mind to this," he said.

Christie said reform groups in other states are looking at pushing initiative petitions, too.

In Vermont, campaign finance reform has passed the state House and could pass the Senate, he said.

Missouri's plan differs from the Maine plan in one key way. Missouri's plan would be funded with an added tax.

Maine's campaign dollars for candidates will come from fees levied on lobbyists, reallocation of money in the state budget, and from taxpayers who voluntarily earmark $3 of their taxes to the program.

It is estimated Vermont would spend $2.2 to $2.4 million to finance candidate campaigns in a given year, beginning in the year 2000.

Christie and Senturia said publicly financed campaigns would allow candidates to debate the issues rather than spend their time raising money.

State Rep. Mary Kasten, R-Cape Girardeau, doesn't like the ever-rising cost of campaigns.

But she opposes the idea of tax-funded campaigns. "I think it takes away a little bit of the freedom of the election process."

Missouri voters in 1994 approved a measure to limit campaign contributions. But a federal court struck it down as unconstitutional.

Thomason said courts have ruled that donating to a campaign is an exercise of a person's freedom of speech.

He said putting limits on campaign spending helps the wealthy candidates, who don't need outside contributions to run for office.

Area lawmakers said there aren't any easy answers when it comes to campaign reform.

"There needs to be some reforms made," said Kasten, "but I don't think anybody is smart enough yet to know how to go about it."