MISSOURI WATCH: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MAGNET FOR AMERICA'S QUADRENNIAL GOLD RUSH

Every American except those who might have been unconscious for the past four years knows that the amount of money contributed and spent in U.S. elections is scandalous, reaching such an absurd point that candidates who have raised the most money are usually called winners even before the votes are counted.

This year's mishmash of preferential primaries, attack commercials, political sound bites and partisan posturing have combined to make the 1996 election the most expensive in the history of the country. Here in Missouri, the final totals may not reach 1992's previous high, but this improvement was due only to unusual circumstances and not a change of heart on the part of candidates to outspend their opponents, regardless of what might be required in the way of political accommodation and special-interest fawning.

A comprehensive analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan study group based in Washington, reports that the financial sector -- led by securities firms, banks and the insurance and real estate industries -- invested $59.8 million in the outcome of last Tuesday's voting in just the first six months of this year. In fact, the Center estimates that when all the hard-cash contributions for this year's campaign are tallied, the price tag for federal elections will have topped $1.6 billion.

A look at how the current cash-for-courtesy system works can be seen by delving into contributions made by just one long-distance telephone company: AT&T. Last December, U.S. House and Senate negotiators reached a new agreement on how a sweeping telecommunications reform bill would be written. The very next day, AT&T's political action committee distributed $166,250 to federal campaigns -- the most any company has given on any day during the nation's history.

Despite the phone carrier's generosity, the nation's largest contributor was the Philip Morris tobacco company, shelling out $2.7 million to selective candidates, 78 percent of whom are Republicans. AT&T ranked just behind Philip Morris, handing $2.2 million to candidates, 60 percent of whom are members of the GOP. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America was almost as generous, giving $2.1 million to candidates, all but 17 percent of whom are Democrats. The Teamsters Union, which once was virtually the political arm of the Republican Party, has switched sides and in this year's campaign gave 92 percent of its $2 million political spending to Democrats.

As readers begin digesting the meaning of these huge sums, it should be noted that this is hardly the end of spending in our cash-and-curry-influence elections. The presence of so-called "soft money," cash given not to the candidates but to groups dedicated to a particular candidate's success at the polls, is equally scandalous, perhaps even more so. Since this so-called "soft money" can be spent by ad hoc organizations that are formed only briefly to re-elect a favorite senator or congressman, there is no way to detail these expenditures and no way to track their origins. So hidden is this category of campaign expenditures that the Mafia could easily spend a million or two bucks and no one would ever be able to trace its gifts. One can call this a "loophole," but in reality the nation's campaign laws are written by the very persons who will benefit from more escape clauses than there are holes in genuine Swiss cheese. These escape clauses are not accidental; they are inserted in so-called regulatory legislation for the express purpose of channeling all kinds of money into candidates' bank accounts.

After appellate courts got through with a mislabeled election reform law that was approved by Missourians only two years ago, it is accurate to say our state has virtually no real restrictions on excessive or even improper campaign contributions. A look at the list of donors to the state's most important races this year reveals the names of many of Missouri's largest corporations and professional groups. And if the list of donors is matched with the recipients, it will become readily apparent that current laws are designed to enable powerful companies and influential groups and organizations to reward their friends and punish their enemies. It is a luxury denied to John Q. Public, whose small check to a favorite candidate is about as meaningful as a politician's call for electoral reform.

Welcome to American politics in the '90s!

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