MISSOURI WATCH: MALICE IN MISSOURILAND

Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do; once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, "and what is the use of a book," thought Alice, "without pictures of conversations?" -- "Alice in Wonderland"

When, and if, Missourians look back at the election campaign just concluded, we wonder if they will recall any pictures or conversations that occurred in what seemed like an interminable period of time. If there are any reflections, and there seldom are, the recollections will undoubtedly center on the acrid charges hurled by candidates in the U.S. Senate race or the complexity of the seven amendments and one statutory provision on the constitutional ballot or the absence of any meaningful debate in most of the 180 legislative slots that were filled.

Like Alice, Missourians might wonder about the use of so much time, effort and money to select office holders and choose policies that provided such a small degree of difference in how our state and federal governments are operated, and how once seemingly important questions turn out to hold so little significance to the overall operation of public governance. "What was it all about?" will undoubtedly be thought, if not asked, in the days and weeks ahead.

The most alarming aspect of Election 1998 was not who or what won or lost but how little citizen input went into the final results. No wonder today's voters anticipate campaigns with dread: the issue papers, commercials, direct mailings and debates aren't about the public welfare but about the candidates and their claimed qualifications.

Candidates, sometimes frighteningly resembling mentally challenged aluminum-siding salesmen, seek to sell their appearance, political history and visionary goals to groups of "customers" who have historical reasons for disbelief. These same customers have been short-changed in the past and they have little visible evidence that they will not be victims once again.

When it comes to constitutional amendments, a mere handful of the minority of registered voters will ever devote the time and effort required to actually read them. Some will rely on presumed summaries that are factually incorrect, while others will take their lead from the media, friends or occasionally even total strangers. This is how the amendment process works, although not how it was intended to work.

There were a couple of amendments on the recent ballot that took advantage of the official disinterest in enhancing public understanding and participation in representative government. One, Amendment No. 9, was written not by officials elected by the public at large but by persons representing the industry that was affected. In other words, gambling casino owners wrote their own regulations and added a couple of extra fillips that chartered new areas of opportunity for the industry. The amendment was basically designed to eliminate the unfortunate denouement that created "boats in a moat," and then it added legality for this same error to be repeated in the future. Furthermore, the proposal's fiscal note failed to include the public's cost for the negative effects of gambling, such as expenses for treating compulsive gambling, increased crime and escalating bankruptcies.

Despite these, and still other, discrepancies, no one could correct the process since its sponsors had complied with existing, but inadequate, rules and regulations. Unless the public listened carefully to only a handful of sources, no one recognized the pejorative effects of an amendment that was touted as correcting a problem.

The large number of amendments, coupled with their complexity, challenged puzzled voters who looked vainly for official oversight and counsel, yet neither the Secretary of State's Elections Division nor the independent Missouri Ethics Commission is empowered to provide such information. Even before the Hancock Amendment, which has triggered record numbers of taxpayer-financed lawsuits from puzzled public entities, there were numerous attempts, many successful, to meet the parochial needs of singular industries, special interests and even political parties.

Despite these deficiencies, there is little public interest or demand for correction. This is understandable, given the fact potential beneficiaries want the process to remain as flawed as possible, while a disinterested citizenry cannot cope with the immediate problems raised, much less pleas for improving the system. The public interest always comes last.

The only satisfactory, lasting solution is the creation of a totally independent campaign review commission, empowered not only to regulate the initiative referendum process but one with the authority to inform voters of the ramifications of public proposals. This commission would meet a need that the state's present structure cannot provide, and in the long run would save Missourians untold tax dollars as well as the harmful consequences of special-interest legislation.

Such a commission would have to be composed of citizens who had no political aspirations, no partisan axes to grind and a real desire to enhance public participation in the governmental process. There are citizens all across the state who would meet these criteria and would serve the public interest in the best manner possible.

Another passage from Lewis Carroll's delightful allegorical story of Alice best sums up the problem Missourians increasingly face today:

"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards."

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