Getting to the root of a political evil.

Is the high price of political campaigns hurting democracy in America?

AFTER HEARING ABOUT THE VERITABLE FLOOD OF corporate cash funneled into presidential campaign coffers and soft money reservoirs, you may have questions about whose interests our two main competitors for the White House will actually represent when one of them finds himself snoring in the Lincoln Bedroom (that is, if it hasn't been sublet to a Chinese executive).

Please be at ease. Both candidates swear that the $150 million or so they raised during the primary season and the $300 to $400 million in soft money contributions their respective parties currently wallow in will have no influence over the decisions they make as the future most-powerful-middle-aged-white-guy in the world.

Also, many of those corporate officers and union officials who have helped raise the staggering amount of loot required to power the 2000 election cycle swear that they are not buying influence. Really. They just, well, darn it, they like these guys--and their parties. Heck, a lot of big corporations--especially ones that expect to face regulatory problems in the near future--like these parties so much, they're willing to pump big bucks into both parties. You might call this hedging your bets, but that just shows what a political neophyte you are. Corporate donors just take a keen interest in American democracy.

So the $3 billion or so raised and squandered during this 2000 election cycle will have no effect on the bills our representatives write (or have written for them by political lobbyists), the social and economic policies they pursue, and the corporate junkets, er, I mean travel investigations they'll undertake. That's a relief because in the place the rest of us inhabit, known as the real world, there are few situations where coughing up that much quid did not lead directly to some kind of quo.

During the primary season, Texas Governor George W. Bush raised nearly $94 million, and Vice President Al Gore more than $52 million. Now, however, both camps can relax a little and glide by on the $135 million in public monies that will bankroll the general election this month. But accumulating all that cash for the primaries must have kept volunteer fund-raisers hard at it arm-twisting business partners, knocking on back room doors, and generally making the deals everyone swears they're not making. The shenanigans surrounding efforts to collect those "hard money" donations--contributions that are subject to full disclosure and may not exceed $1,000 per individual--can't compete with the Wild West of our campaign system, the freewheeling world of soft money.

In soft-money land, the loot flows freely from individuals, corporations, and unions--and the numbers just keep going up. During the 1988 elections, the parties raised $45 million in soft money. By 1992, soft-money contributions nearly doubled to $83 million, and, in the 1996 election, they tripled to $262 million. During this election cycle soft money is coming in at about double the 1996 rate.

In a 1998 statement on campaign finance reform, the Catholic bishops of Illinois called political expression a human right that should not come with a price tag attached. Advocates for the nation's most vulnerable can tell you that the high admission ticket of the current campaign finance system locks them and the people they represent out of the political process.

A coordinator for Dollars and Democracy, an ecumenical effort aimed at campaign finance reform, said last year. "We are stymied on ... public policy issues no matter how well we witness, organize, or agitate. We hit this brick wall on policy. We don't bring money to the political table, and that is how many of the times success is measured."

Standing atop the podium at the scripted climax of the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, Al Gore told the American people that his first act as president would be to push through campaign finance reform. Ironically, million-dollar contributions from companies such as BP Amoco, General Motors, AT&T, and Microsoft helped foot the bill for the high-tech podium he stood upon.

If he's true to his word, Democrats won't be able to use that flashy podium next time around. That platform is costing all of us too much.

By KEVIN CLARKE, who recommends visiting the links page at Salt of the Earth (salt.claretianpubs.org) for campaign finance reform resources.