Important state races underreported.

Hellinger, Daniel

While reporters' attentions have been fixed on the intense Senate race between Democrat Jean Carnahan and Republican Jim Talent, an intense political battle has raged for state legislative seats--and for control of the future of state politics. Not only do state legislators make laws for jurisdiction larger than several European nations, the state House and Senate are breeding grounds for future candidates in statewide and federal elections. And this year the stakes are higher than usual.

Both Democrats and Republicans view this year's election as crucial for the future balance of power in Jefferson City. Republicans have clawed their way nearly to parity with their opponents in both the House and the Senate. And, a combination of redistricting and term limits put many seats up for grabs. But, open seats meant candidates faced the challenge of building name recognition, which meant more media and more money pouring into campaign coffers.

The 2002 elections may define the partisan balance in state politics for many years to come. In the lower and upper houses combined, more than 100 seats were up for grabs.

In 2002, due to term limits, 73 members of the House were not eligible to run again, but in 2004, only 19 members will not be eligible.

The election will not only shape party fortunes but the ability of major interest groups with a stake in Missouri politics. Consider the stakes on abortion.

Anti-abortion groups steadily built up a legislative majority poised to advance more restrictions on women's right to choose, but pro-choice groups did relatively well in 2000, electing 10 of 17 candidates who attended their candidate workshop that year. With term limits taking full effect this year, many anti-abortion legislators will leave office, magnifying the importance of the pro-choice freshmen who won in 2000 and opening possibilities for both groups to realign the legislature in their favor.

Both political parties recognized the stakes and organized workshops and published handbooks to guide local candidates. The Democratic handbook distributed by TEAMMISSOURI was made available to SJR by a first-time legislative candidate disturbed by the party's lack of interest in issues and its shift toward more expensive and professional stress on fundraising, public relations and internal organization.

TEAMMISSOURI's handbook instructed candidates on preparing literature, advertising and generating news coverage, staffing and raising money Only one page of the 75-page manual was devoted to the "House Democratic Message" of 2002. "Protecting Missouri's Future" consisted of 12 bulleted points stating broad goals, such as "securing funding for our children's education" and to "safeguard seniors from abuse and neglect," that Republicans probably could endorse themselves. For example, Democratic candidates promised, you will be reassured to know, to "promote Homeland Security Legislation."

Missing from the "message" was any comment on the issues that will most affect citizens' lives: dealing with the state's fiscal crisis, allocating funds among the competing needs of transportation, education and social services, etc. The lifeblood of democracy, citizen engagement with issues, traditionally stimulated by party platforms, replaced by a "message" crafted to make voters see a compassionate party, even if the compassion lacks any real content in regard to the issues.

Rather than try to convince voters or raise their consciousness on the issues, candidates were instructed to avoid staking out positions before they have put their finger to the wind. Early in the campaign TEAMMISSOURI advised them to "provide an agenda that acknowledges you will discuss goals" but do "not develop a final message or strategy." The reason? "Chances are, polling will not be completed by this point."

"Polling," advised TEAMMISSOURI, "should also be used to test potential lines of attack against your opponent." Candidates were advised not to confuse this strategy with "negative advocacy calls (sometimes called 'push polling')." The handbook was silent, however, on the ethics of such a tactic.

As for media, TEAMMISSOURI put the emphasis on direct mail. "Don't be 'out-communicated' in the mail box the last 10 days of the election," it advised. "Pictures matter." So does the message, but it was more important that they were researched and then checked against polling before the mail went out.

Given the nature of legislative races, it is logical that mail be preferred over mass media advertising. But the importance of media is clear in the recommended budget, and the importance of money despite campaign finance reform efforts, just as clear.

"Democrats have to change the way we raise and spend campaign dollars," said TEAMMISSOURI. To accomplish this, the state party anticipated that the average state House campaign budget for 2002 was nearly triple that for a typical race in 1996.

In 1996, the normal cost of a campaign for a Democratic candidate was $30,000, of which $7,000 (23 percent) was spent on newspaper ads ($3,500), cable TV production ($1,500), radio ($2,000), and cable television ad buys ($1,000). Another $3500 was spent on signs, $2,000 on brochures, and $5,500 on mailing. Overall, Democratic candidates spent on average only 28 percent ($8,500) on direct communication (radio, mailing and cable TV ads) with voters.

By contrast, TEAMMISSOURI's plan was to increase the amount of money spent on communication with voters to $52,300. Campaigns were to become more professional, with staff costs rising from $3,000 to $10,500, but less money was to be spent on signs and palm cards. For the first time candidates were instructed to budget one sixth ($14,000) of their money on researching the opposition, benchmark polls and tracking polls.

Dan Hellinger is professor of political science at Webster University.