MISSOURI COMMENTARY: HOUSE RACES: WHO HAS MONEY?

As Bill Clinton's lead over Bob Dole remains very strong, the nation's political eyes and ears turn towards the Congressional races.

The Senate (53-47 in favor of the GOP) seems out of reach to the Democrats unless the Clinton coattails were to approximate something like Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 or Lyndon Johnson in 1964. It's the House of Representatives that is the hot battleground for 1996.

Through the years, many House candidates have developed elaborate individual funding mechanisms that provide them the ability to distance themselves, if need be, from the top of the ticket. Coattails "ain't what they used to be."

Indeed, there often ain't any coattails at all. For example, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 had massive presidential victories, but paid little attention to the House races. Nixon and Reagan wanted to "run up the score," to get down in history as presidents with staggering re-election wins.

Those landslide victories didn't do anything in terms of winning a majority. One open question for 1996 is: How much attention will Clinton pay to recapturing the House? What's "attention?" Money.

In addition to the bundle of money provided by the federal government, Clinton has raised another bundle of money that could be used to help our some Democratic House candidates in tight races.

But Clinton's spending priorities and the priorities of those masterminding the House races for the Democrats may not be the same. Clinton doesn't want to spend money in places he is already a cinch to win, e.g., state of Washington. But that's state where there is an excellent chance to recapture some House seats.

There are 50 to 60 House races that are highly competitive. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know where they are. That's where both parties want to shovel big bucks. The Republicans have more to shovel -- unless there is a Clinton "equalizer."

The campaign strategy to capture the House is precisely the reverse of what it was in 1994. In that year, the Republicans via Newt Gingrich nationalized the campaign with almost every House Republican candidate signing on to support the Contract With America. In addition, Gingrich cast the 1994 election as a national referendum on the then hugely unpopular Bill Clinton.

Conversely, the Democrats sought to avoid Clinton like the plague and to run each House race as a local campaign on the theme of "vote for the Congressman you have known and once loved."

This time it's the reverse. For the Democrats, it's beat Newt and his partner, the aging Dole. For the Republicans, it's becoming: "Well, if you are dumb enough to elect Clinton, for God's sake, don't let him have a Democratic House. Don't give Clinton a blank check."

As we approach the final month of the campaign, more and more House Republicans -- especially in these highly contested 50 to 60 seats -- will in various ways distance themselves from Dole. For instance, few if any of these Republican House candidates will beat the drums for Dole's 15 percent tax cut. They have read the polls and know that the voters aren't buying it.

In the noble profession of politics, it's every man for himself. Few Republican House candidates in tight races will clamor for Dole to come to their district -- unless he brings a bunch of money with him.

The presidential race will almost certainly tighten up. Disaffected Republicans have no chance but to return to Dole. Dole's support has to break through 40 percent. If this happens, then the likelihood of Clinton diverting even more money into states he has locked up will diminish. As Dole will dump heavy money into states where the presidential race may have narrowed, Clinton wil match him dollar for dollar. The likelihood of a huge Clinton "equalizer" in House races if a bit slim.

That's what worries the Democrats about regaining control of the House. Although the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll puts the Democrats eight points ahead in regaining the House, an avalanche of Republican money int he last two or three weeks could narrow that gap.

~Tom Eagleton of St. Louis is a former U.S. senator from Missouri.