In the predawn hours of a frosty morning a few weeks ago, dozens of people stood in line outside a Springfield office building, waiting for its doors to open.

The early birds weren't looking to be among the first to purchase the Beatles Anthology CD. Instead, they were there to file nominating petitions for the March 19 primary and — by being at the State Board of Elections for the 8 a.m. start of the filing period — to have a chance at top ballot position for their particular races.

Despite the raw temperature and biting wind chill, the conditions on filing day were pleasant compared to the political climate that awaits many of the hopefuls as Campaign '96 unfolds.

Rough weather can be forecast in particular for legislative candidates running in so-called "target" districts, those in which neither party has a lock on the seat and whose outcome thus will determine legislative control.

Campaigns in those key districts have been characterized in recent years by two disturbing qualities: extraordinary cost and an intensely negative tone, heavy with personal attacks and light on meaningful discussion of significant issues.

Neither quality is salutary for state government. Those who survive the ordeal often seem unable to consider new approaches to chronic problems or to take bold steps to address critical issues; at times, they appear hesitant to offend a special interest whose agenda may not coincide with the public good.

One contributing factor to this unhealthy situation is the state's wide-open system of campaign finance, which allows — some say encourages — special interests to "buy" influence in state decision-making that is unavailable to the average citizen. A system of unlimited and unregulated campaign contributions produces pernicious effects in the political climate, both in seeking office and while governing.

Consider these:

• Runaway campaign spending, fueled by political action committee (PAC) money. The magnitude of the problem can be seen in work done by University of Illinois at Springfield professor Kent D. Redfield, author of Cash Clout: Political Money in Illinois Legislative-Elections. In the 1994 general election, according to Redfield's latest research, the most costly legislative race was the Senate contest in the 29th District, in which more than $1.3 million was spent by the Republican victor, Kathleen K. Parker, and the incumbent Democrat she ousted, Grace Mary Stern. That was two-thirds more than the $806,000 spent for the most costly 1990 contest.

Candidates spent $7.2 million in the 15 most expensive House races in the '94 general election, more than double the $3.2 million spent in the 15 races with the highest price tags four years earlier.

Total spending by legislative candidates in the 1994 general election was $18.5 million, compared to $9.5 million in 1990.

The high cost of running serves to dissuade those who would be independent of PAC funds and party bosses, including minorities and the poor, from seeking office. Those who do face an uphill, usually losing, battle against well-heeled rivals tied in to either party leaders, PAC interests, or both.

• Negative campaigns, again fueled by PAC money. The attack ads were particularly vicious in a number of key House races in 1994, most of which Republicans won to gain control of the House for the first time since 1980. But Election Day was only a brief respite for some of the Republican freshmen. Democrats began going after targeted GOP newcomers from the moment they took office, flooding their districts with direct mail pieces accusing them of breaking campaign promises and selling out local voters to satisfy the GOP's suburban leadership.

In a close contest, of course, the pressure is strong for campaign strategists to employ the staples of negative campaigning, the 30-second TV attack ad and the direct mail piece, as often as resources permit. With no limits on contributions, all too frequently the practical result is almost constant repetition of negative material that misrepresents, distorts and misleads. In turn, the negative barrage feeds public disenchantment with politics.

38 * January 1996 Illinois Issues

• Policy-making distorted by inappropriate influences. In 1993, legislation to require doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor died when 13 lawmakers dropped their support after the Illinois State Medical Society objected to its penalty provisions.

Similarly, House Democrats for years blocked changes in the civil justice system that were opposed by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

The docs and the trial lawyers are not the only influential outside players in the legislative process, of course. But the cases illustrate an important point: Certain issues tend to be considered not on their merits, but with undue deference to PAC positions.

As a corollary, the temptation is great to ignore those unable to contribute, typically the poor, minorities and advocates of the broad public interest. Thus, these citizens find it increasingly difficult to have a meaningful voice in policy-making.

Given such problems, the need seems evident for campaign finance reform.

In his book, Redfield offers some "modest proposals" to strengthen disclosure and reporting. Above threshold levels, he would have groups — as well as candidates — file reports and individuals list their occupation and employer. To make reports accessible and meaningful, he would have records kept in a computerized database and analyzed by elections board staff. And he would limit the use of campaign contributions for nonelection purposes.

His ideas offer a good starting point, as does long-standing interest in a later primary — ideally in September — to shorten the campaign season and thus the cost of running.

Such changes would produce a more agreeable political climate — and better weather for first-day filers. *

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Illinois Issues January 1996 * 39