MISSOURI WATCH: THE MASTER OF MISSOURI'S PULBIC SERVANTS: HARD, COLD CASH

If you previously thought there was too much money in politics, just wait till you read this. As the old vaudeville line goes, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

An analysis just completed by two advocacy groups graphically illustrates the pervasiveness of cold, hard cash in Missouri's political system, threatening not only to corrupt our representative democracy but to destroy the power of the voting public to determine the future course of government. Such power not only corrupts, it ultimately eradicates a system devised by America's founding fathers to assure freedom from special interests, whatever those interests might be.

The study undertaken by two citizens' groups located in St. Louis should give pause to any clear-thinking citizen, particularly any among this midst who believe the electoral system must not be altered by the infusion of dollars, each one of which is designed to curry favor and favoritism.

In the event any Missourian is in doubt about just how far we have traveled toward the path of public servants having been bought and paid for by hard cash, consider these findings from a report entitled "The Price of Admission to the Missouri State Legislature":

-- Missouri Senate and House candidates raised more than $6.8 million for last November's general election campaign, a total that does not include independent expenditures for the candidates by individuals, political action committees and other groups, nor does the total include the additional millions spent by candidates for the state's General Assembly in the earlier August primary campaign. The total, needless to say, is an all-time record for legislative campaigns in our state.

-- Counting funds raised for both the primary and general election campaigns, but excluding independent expenditures, the total amount spent to elect one-half the Missouri Senate and all 163 members of the House of Representatives exceeds $10 million. Again, this total sets an all-time high. Some state legislative candidates in the 1994 campaign spent as much as did some winning candidates for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, where salaries are five times larger.

-- In every single one of the 17 contests for the Missouri Senate last November, every candidate who raised and spent more money than his or her opponent was the winner. In contests for House seats, nearly 9 out of 10 winners raised and spent more money than his or her opponent. Winners of contested House seats spent, on the average, 47 percent more than their opponents.

-- From 1990 to 1994, Missouri's Senate campaign contribution totals increased nearly 25 percent. On the average, each candidate took in slightly less than $100,000 last year in an effort to become a member of the upper chamber.

-- The average spent by winners in the 1994 Senate contests was $106,766, while the average spent by losers was $58,974. Candidates who challenged an incumbent spent, on the average, $163,514, while incumbents who lost averaged $120,121.

It now takes more to lose a contest than was ever spent on any legislative contest just a decade ago.

There have been convincing studies published in the past pointing to the overriding importance of money in political campaigns, but it would be hard to find any analysis more convincing than the one just released by the St. Louis-based advocacy groups. Just think of it: the winner of every single Missouri Senate campaign contest last year was the candidate who raised more money than his opponent. How much more do we need to convince us that something is not only rotten in Denmark but there is something far out of kilter with the electoral system much closer to home, namely our own state of Missouri?

The huge majority given the initiative petition which is now known as Proposition A gives some assurance that many Missourians are not only aware of the dangers of excessive sums of money in their campaigns but are willing and anxious to see remedies placed in effect. The problem is that the good people who proposed the reforms promised by Proposition A wrote an imperfect law, with portions of it already declared unconstitutional and thus null and void. Numerous persons warned Prop A's authors that some of what they were proposing would be thrown out by the courts, but for some reason, the questionable regulations were never removed from the referendum submitted to voters, and we are now stuck with a badly damaged reform act that can't deliver on all of its promises.

The subject of improving the state's campaign laws always comes down to suggestions that are designed to protect the status quo of existing officeholders, thereby placing aspiring candidates at a disadvantage. The courts have repeatedly struck down provisions that, admittedly or not, were designed to give an edge to those who were already a part of the political process. Improvements are further hindered by the failure of both political parties in the state to oppose campaign spending limits from special interest donors, since both groups seek to raise as much money as possible in the correct assumption that their ultimate success at the polls will depend on how much cash they have at their disposal.

What is a public office that pays an annual salary of less than $23,000 actually worth in terms of campaign expenditures? Common sense should tell most of us that no public position, regardless of its importance and power, is worth more than the officeholder receives in salary. Whether that cap is placed on a 12-month salary total or even on a 24-month or 48-month total, at least there would be some restraint placed on campaign excesses that, at this moment, threaten to make a mockery of our democratic system.

The right of individuals seeking public office to basic First Amendment privileges should not be challenged, but the right of candidates to exceed the boundaries of common sense and fiscal accountability should not be a part of any acceptable reform legislation. But we had better hurry to close the dollar threat to the political process or we will surely destroy it.

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