WHO'S GOT THE MONEY? ONLY BAGMAN KNOWS

There are varying schools of thought about the evils of and cures for excessive campaign spending. The more optimistic want tight spending limits, government matching funds, controls on or even elimination of Political Action Committees and other sweeping reforms. The more cautious oppose a tight, regulated electoral system and abhor any form of government financing.

But there is one precept agreed upon across the philosophical spectrum: detailed and timely disclosures should be made, setting forth where the candidate got his money and where he spent it. All election experts assert that the public has the right to know what persons or groups are backing the candidate with their money and how the candidate is spending the money once he receives it. Yet not so in Missouri. In our state's haphazard, Victorian electoral system, candidates feel free to obscure both the funding sources and the recipient entities.

In the Kansas City mayoral election earlier this year, an operative of the "reform" candidate picked some names out of thin air to list as contributors, thereby shielding the identity of some of the unwitting, authentic supporters. If the clean guys in Kansas City play that fast and loose, imagine the exploits of the smudged-up guys? Missouri law supposedly requires real contributors to be revealed, but in Kansas City, the reform-minded apparently don't pay much attention to Missouri election laws.

In the city of St. Louis the "reform" candidates for the school board came up with what appears to be the newest and cutest method of political fog emission. Pay over all the campaign funds to a couple of guys and just list their names as the ultimate recipients, even though they turn around and spend the money elsewhere. One of the recipients then states that his lips are sealed as to where the money went because he would be giving away a "trade secret" if he told how he spent it. If he disclosed that one ward organization got $5,000 and another got only $4,000, it would be equivalent to Coca Cola revealing its formula to Pepsi at least the lower paid ward organization might think so. If he explained how he bought more time on one TV station rather than another, it would be equivalent to Taco Bell divulging its recipe to the government of Mexico.

So the secret of Missouri "reform" politics is to keep it secret. In Kansas City don't tell anybody what you got and in St. Louis don't tell how you handed it out. This is what reform is all about. What the people don't know won't hurt 'em. Just claim to be "clean," and everyone will take you on trust and faith even the most reform-minded of decent souls.

Politics in Missouri is so ossified that even the good guys are afraid to play by ethical rules. Money is so pervasive that it is necessary to appoint one bagman-consultant to carry it around and never divulge where he made the drops. Can't divulge "trade secrets," you know. In the name of reform, the good do evil and are protected by the mantle of feigned ignorance.

Perhaps saddest of all, no one really cares. Not much is expected of politicians these days. The reformers are just like all the others. Now you see it, now you don't. My lips are sealed.