MISSOURI WATCH: DREADFUL REALITY OF CAMPAIGNS

"The people have spoken."

This oft-repeated phrase is used at election time to register a variety of sentiments, from elation to disappointment, from satisfaction to sorrow, from reassurance to disbelief. It is a phrase used by winners to assign voter wisdom and by losers to explain perceived error.

In reality, the "people" seldom speak at elections, if by people one means all the voters who are eligible to cast ballots for a candidate or decide on a public issue. The word implies everyone, when everyone knows that a voter turnout of anything close to 60 percent is viewed in the United States as nothing short of remarkable. A recent University of Texas study showed that voter turnout in that state for municipal, county, and congressional and statewide contests was only 28 percent of those eligible.

Testimony in recent days by political science experts in Missouri points to an almost total failure of the so-called motor-voter law to entice these citizens to the polls, even at the first election following their registration.

"The people have spoken" would seem to imply that elections are about important political contests, public issues, ideas, proposals, programs. This, after all, was the concept proposed and fostered by America's Founding Fathers, who saw in the concept of free elections the power to retain and promote a democratic form of government. Strangely, however, the men who promote the concept of free elections reserved that freedom for white males only. Women and minorities were denied the tool by which the nation would enrich the welfare of all.

A recent Supreme Court decision striking down a campaign contribution lid on Missourians utilized the perfectly rational reasoning that such a restriction limited freedom of expression. Indeed, it does, even as it carries with it the implication that one's freedom of expression is enhanced by his or her personal wealth. The lid was placed on a proposal advocated four years ago by Missourians who were getting tired of seeing huge sums of money expended to elect candidates to office. The attempt was genuine, even if flawed.

In the chamber of the U.S. Senate the other day, still another attempt to control the excessive influence of big money in elections was under consideration. Missouri's two U.S. senators, both honest and conscientious men, voted against the proposals on the floor, assigning the reforms to their ultimate doom of limbo. When I questioned both Senators, they responded that the changes would require the use of taxpayer money to finance congressional and senatorial races. This is a sound argument if one believes members of Congress are that conscientious about spending taxpayer money, and it implies that it is preferable to have special interest money funding campaigns than funds provided by all taxpayers. Interestingly, both men voted only days before to spend nearly $14 billion more than the Pentagon had requested for defense systems. That money would finance several years of congressional campaigns.

At the state level, there is such indifference to election reform that one would not even guess imperfection was present. A study committee several months ago recommended that statewide elections receive a relatively small amount of public money in exchange for stiff restrictions on outside money, but again this solution was rejected because it involved the use of funds supplied by the taxpayers. While one can appreciate the sincere legislative devotion to saving taxpayer money, it is strange that such devotion does not always extend to special interest or regional spending requests.

Unless some event triggers it, it is unlikely that election changes will even be discussed in this year's statewide campaigns, although everyone would be terribly disappointed if conventional, routine dedication to "election reform" was not mentioned, always in passing, of course.

The public has grown understandably cynical about political dedication to improving campaign financing. It has been on the agenda longer than almost any public question one can mention, and this is where the political players want it to remain. Reform would mean an end to large gifts from large companies, unions, political action committees and special interests; it would mean the public would be able to lay out the ground rules of campaigns and demand an end to the disgraceful manner in which the world's greatest democracy chooses to ignore its fundamental beliefs on election day.

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