1.6 Billion Reasons for Campaign Reform : It’s a very good year for federal candidates’ war chests

Politicians, professors and pundits who seek causes for the electorate’s growing political cynicism need only glance at the new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which examines how campaigns are financed. More than ever, successful campaigning is tied to how much money a candidate is able to spend, and more than ever, special interests--business and finance, labor unions, single-issue groups--have become the chief sources for money.

There is nothing inherently wrong in contributing money to advance group or individual interests. But when ever-swelling sums of campaign money come from a relatively small number of sources, all of which expect or may have already received legislative or executive favors, the integrity of the governing process is inevitably tainted.

Candidates for president and Congress will be showered with at least $1.6 billion from contributors this year. About half of that will be spent on the presidential race, making it three times more costly than the 1992 campaign. How the $800 million or so that is going to congressional candidates is distributed could be decisive in determining who sits in the next Congress; “nine out of 10 candidates who raise the most money win,” according to Ellen Miller, executive director of the center.

Federal law limits individual contributions to $1,000 and business giving to $5,000 per candidate. But a huge loophole that Congress seems determined to leave open allows unlimited special interest contributions--so-called soft money--to the national political parties, money that can be spent on advertising, organization and the like.

Adding soft money to funds from political action committees and individual contributions buys a lot of influence. The Center for Responsive Politics identifies four $2-million-plus contributors: Philip Morris, AT&T;, the Assn. of Trial Lawyers of America and the Teamsters Union. The financial services industry has given more money--nearly $60 million--than any other sector. About $35 million has been spent by organized labor.

You pay your money and you buy your influence, with results that don’t necessarily coincide with what best serves the general good. Who will change this corrupting, corrosive system? Leaving that task to politicians who rely on the system, even as they profess to condemn it, simply won’t do. Perhaps the only effective approach will have to be through an independent, bipartisan commission whose proposals would be veto-proof.