PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING IS A REALLY BAD IDEA

If there are enough valid signatures on petitions turned into the secretary of state's office last week, Missourians will be deciding in November if they want tax-supported political campaigns.

Missouri Voters for Fair Elections has collected 108,00 signatures. A total of 70,000 valid signatures are needed to get the measure on the Nov. 7 general-election ballot. MVFE wants an estimated $13 million taken from corporate franchise-tax revenue to fund the campaigns of candidates for statewide office. Opponents of the plan, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, dispute that amount.

In order to qualify, candidates for offices such as governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general would have to agree to limit campaign spending and refuse to accept money from private interest groups. MVFE says this method of campaign funding would eliminate the influence of high-dollar contributors such as special-interest groups and corporations.

The idea is a bad one and should be soundly rejected by voters again in 2000 just as a similar initiative effort was stopped in 1998. The very idea of gigging taxpayers -- corporations who pay franchise taxes -- is beyond comprehension. Candidates who raise money ought to be free to spend that money on their campaigns for public office. Period. Moreover, voters get a good assessment of a candidate by his ability to raise money. What voter would want to elect someone who wouldn't be able to raise money for a decent campaign?

By the way, corporate franchise taxes are the taxes Missouri corporations pay on their assets as of Jan. 1 each year. The franchise-tax rate is 1/30th of 1 percent. That revenue is already committed to other state spending. And, if recent grumbling about how the state is going to pay for the hefty new budget just approved by the Legislature is any indication, there aren't very many millions of dollars lying around to be spent on poorly conceived schemes like public financing of political campaigns.

Political parties have long been key fund-raisers for their candidates. Not only would this plan make taxpayers foot the bill, it would also knock out a major reason for having political parties in the first place.

Finally, a third reason for opposing this plan is simple common sense. Candidates who take public funding would do so voluntarily. It would be a candidate without a shred of common sense who would agree to limit his campaign spending in order to use public funds while his opponent relied on traditional fund raising that would likely yield considerably more money.

As with other campaign reforms that seek to limit contributions to candidates, the key is to take off all the restrictions while, at the same time, requiring accurate and speedy reporting of who those contributors are. That's what will make for fair and honest elections.