Full P-D editorial from 6/19/1997:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ( Missouri)
June 19, 1997 , Thursday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
A CORRUPT SYSTEM ENDURES
SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. 06B
LENGTH: 536 words

Attorney General Jay Nixon, who vigorously defended Missouri's tough campaign finance laws in federal court two years ago, is now running for the Senate. Predictably, changed circumstances call forth changed values. Sunday, Mr. Nixon is holding a fundraising dinner where attendees are asked to give a minimum of $ 5,000 - $ 3,000 more than the legal limit for gifts to federal candidates.

But don't worry. It's all legal Mr. Nixon's aides say. The excess will go to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, where it will be "tallied," or earmarked for Mr. Nixon's campaign. Committee officials told Tim Poor of the Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau that the tallied funds don't necessarily go to the candidate for whom they are earmarked. Tallying is only one test of who gets the committee's money. So it's perfectly legal.

If that's true - which it may or may not be - then at best Mr. Nixon's fundraiser is being used to fatten the party's treasury with soft-money, the element in today's corrupt campaign finance system that most needs reforming. Apparently, Mr. Nixon's advocacy of reform doesn't require that his actions be consistent with his beliefs.

But rhetoric is about all you get these days on campaign finance reform. On July 4, Congress will miss the deadline President Clinton gave it in January for action on reform legislation. No hearings have been held, and no action of any kind is contemplated. Instead, the matter has been ignored by both parties, which like the system the way it is.

A case in point: President Clinton, despite his request to the Federal Election Commission to ban soft-money - which it has ignored - and despite his promise to limit soft money gifts to his party to $ 100,000 a piece, just held a fundraiser where the price of admission is $ 250,000. Again, not to worry say the Clinton folks. Democrats promise to apply only $ 100,000 of the gifts to this year's account, the same amount to next year's and ask donors merely to promise to raise the final $ 50,000 from others. So the president is complying with his self-imposed limit - technically. Obviously, he cares as little for reform as Congress does.

Both parties and both branches of government are betting the public doesn't care either, despite people's often-expressed disgust with polit icians and the money tree they believe excludes them and controls the process. Unfortunately, the bet is probably sound. Voters have more immediate interests at election time than campaign spending, particular when choosing between two-well healed candidates - if they get as far as the voting booth.

That's where the real damage indifference to campaign finance reform occurs. Ever fewer are bothering to vote. Of course, there are plenty of reasons why, but certainly one powerful motivation is the feeling of so many that elections are a more a choice between two corrupt gangs than two serious political parties.

Mr. Nixon said it pretty well himself two years ago as he left the federal courthouse after defending Missouri's tough law. He said big contributions give the "appearance of corruption and added, "The old days of unlimited contributions and spending are over." Are they Mr. Nixon?