There.

Lewis, Charles

This past August, more than 14 months before the 1996 presidential election, the attention of the national news media was focused on Ames, Iowa. At a Republican Party social known as a "straw poll," anyone who wanted to cast a ballot -- or even more than one -- for a GOP presidential candidate simply had to pay $25 for a ticket that allowed them to do so. The big surprise, we were informed after the polling was done and the spinning begun, was that Phil Gramm had tied Bob Dole with 2,582 votes, or $64,550. Much of the money to buy the tickets for the voters was provided by the camthigns and their corporate patrons. Most news organizations acknowledged that the straw poll was a "non-event" in part because of the vote-buying, but their reportage of course made it all an event nonetheless.

Two months later, The New York Times and other news organizations reported that Gramm may have lost his "best friend," ready campaign money, because through the first three quarters of 1995, he had amassed "only" $14 million. The press neglected to put it in context and mention that the amount is more than four times what opposition party challenger Bill Clinton spent for the entire calendar year, 1991, before he was elected president.

Journalists frequently report the latest incoming receipts from the Federal Election Commission for all of the presidential campaigns, sometimes including fancy charts and graphs, convinced that they have done their readers a service in presenting a "money in politics" story. The information is in fact new and frequently interesting, but the rest of the story about these unprecedented amounts of candidate cash remains largely untold to average voters.

It is true that a successful presidential candidate must have an impressive organization and fund-raising ability. But there is an inordinate emphasis on money as a mere measure of the viability of a candidacy, and very little discussion about which candidate would be better for the country, what his idea are, and who'tlbehind him.

Voters have always viscerally sensed that there is an alliance between politicians and multi-million-dollar interests. But the have a right to know -- and journalists have an obligation to report -- just which interests have invested in which candidates, and precise to what extent these patrons and their politicians have benefited over the years.

The important thing or journalist to do in the 1996 presidential contest is listen to the candidates and what they are saying about themselves. Then look more closely at what they don't talk abousa-- how monied interests have underwritten their careers. Politicians rarely tell you the whole story. For example, in the late seventies and eighties, a younger Bill Clinton gave political speeches about the plight of Arkansas chicken farmers, practically never uttering the words "Tyson Foods" in public. Senator Phil Gramm is far more likely to talk about the right of Americans to bear arms, than to brag that he is in the National Rifle Association's holster.

Most Americans probably don't know that the NRA has given Gramm $442,525 since 1979 -- more money than to any other politician in the U.S. during that time. Since 1984, Gramm has introduced, sponsored, or voted with the NRA on 18 key bills concerning gun issues. He has even solicited contributions for the NRA on NRA stationery. The NRA's 3.5 million members and organization are important to Gramm's 1996 presidential hopes, and Just how entwined the NRA and Gramm are became clear earlier this year. Following the Oklahoma City bombing and increased media coverage of "hate" groups and militias, after public rebukes of the controversial organization by former President George Bush and President Bill Clinton, Gramm was invited to speak at the national NRA convention in Phoenix, and he did not utter a single word of criticism of the group.

These relationships of presidential candidates to their benefactors are extremely revealing, yet generally unknown. Tht '96 campaign is an opportunity to disclose and describe the buying of the presidential process, and what of America has been sold in the process. It is also a time to look more closely at the personal financial relationships with multi-million-dollar contributors, and to juxtapose the positions of the candidates with their own financial portfolios.

An example of this occurred this fall in New Hampshire. Millionaire publisher and GOP presidential hopeful Steven Forbes held his first news conference in Bedford. For days, Forbes had been extolling the virtues and wisdom of revamping the tax code and instituting a "flat tax" on all Americans, rich and poor. One local reporter asked Forbes how many millions of dollars he would personally save each year from enactment of a new flat tax policy. Forbes never really answered the question, but at least it was asked; he should be held accountable on that and other financial issues in the months ahead.

Questions should be asked again and again, by local and national reporters, until they are responsively answered. Tarmac photo-ops in Des Moines and other cities for the evening news should start featuring tough follow-the-money questions about each candidate's "career patrons" and the favors they have received in return over the years. Politicians have received enough vacuous "free media" exposure without ever addressing specific relevant questions.

It is time to se p using sports metaphors to describe how this democracy selects its national leader every four years. Maybe in 1996, America will see the process for what it really is: a prohibitively expensive, high-stakes, exclusive auction.