LET THE DEBATE OVER STATE CAMPAIGN REFORM BEGIN

Political elections are long and expensive. The expense, and who's paying the bill, continues to fuel the fires of campaign reform debate.

Leading the newest assault at the state level is former secretary of state Roy Blunt. He's concerned that Political Action Committees (PACs) and rich special interests are buying votes and elections. Blunt and his newly-formed Missourians for Fair Elections will soon launch an initiative petition to put the measure to a statewide vote. They want to limit contributions to political candidates from individuals and PACs - a move already approved in about half of the states.

Blunt, who first proposed contribution limits to the General Assembly in 1986, feels this is one job legislators are not likely to do.

Missourians for Fair Elections will be in Cape Girardeau tonight - hosting one in a series of public hearings to gain input on its proposal. It begins at 7 p.m. in the program lounge of the Southeast Missouri State University Center. It's good this group is going to the people to gain input before determining the final ballot wording.

We agree that some kind of reform is needed, and this proposal puts the debate front and center. Unlike the federal level, there is currently no limit for donations in Missouri. Blunt feels that unlimited political pledges from individuals and groups builds public distrust of the whole system.

Reforms proposed by Missourians for Fair Elections would apply to candidates from local to statewide races. Campaign contribution limits are already in place for Congress.

Ideally, the answer to money and politics is rather simple: Full disclosure, no cash. With this full knowledge, actions by politicians and candidates speak for themselves. PACs in themselves are not evil. They were formed at the federal level to remove direct contributions by corporations and labor unions. PACs are an expression of free speech and freedom of association. As such, proposals to outlaw PACs and limit campaign spending have run into court challenges.

But PAC contributions need limits. It's not healthy for one group or individual to give tens of thousands of dollars to a single candidate. It would be hard for any candidate to turn his back on the wishes of such generous benefactors. PAC contributions heavily favor the incumbents as well - by a 9 to 1 ratio. Their formidable dollars make it all the more difficult for new faces to break into the political arena.

On the other hand, some bad legislation has masqueraded as election reform. We must make sure that any reform does what it sets out to do - limit the impact of individual contributions while not strangling candidates in red tape. Limits alone are not the answer. Restraints are already in place at the federal level, but few people would say congressional campaigns are pristine. In fact, further campaign finance reforms are being hotly debated in Congress right now.

We're not ready to sign on this particular campaign reform, but we do agree that limits are needed. Let the debate begin.