Molly Ivins October 29

AUSTIN, Texas — Still hoping that something useful will come out of this dreadful campaign, let's focus again on the money. As the Clinton/Indonesian money connection continues to develop nicely, like a photograph coming up in a chemical bath, we will want to remember a couple of important points.

One is that the problem is not foreign money. I have a vision of us in one of our xenophobic snits deciding that shifty Asians of nefarious intent are out to subvert the Amurkin Way. Follow the money: Shifty Asians aren't even in it. Millions and millions in unchecked corporate money is pouring into the parties. No sloe-eyed foreigners — just good ol' red-blooded Amurkin corporations looking for special favors.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 52 percent of Americans want major changes in the way campaigns are financed and another 20 percent believe that we need to make minor changes. And there is a direct correlation between those who know the political system best and those who want to see serious changes. If all we get out of the current mess is a law that says "No foreign money allowed," we will have blown our best shot for reclaiming a truly representative democracy. We will continue to be governed by a corporate oligarchy.

The good news is that it ain't that hard to fix. Public campaign financing, funded through a voluntary check-off on the IRS form with a $100 limit, would create a more than adequate pool of public financing. Minor parties could qualify for a cut of the money, as Ross Perot did, by a decent showing at the polls. Costs can be held down by making free television time available. None of this is new, unheard of, risky or untried. It's old hat in most European countries.

As for the rest of the sad campaign, BobDole could perform one last service for his country by following the Mike Dukakis model. When Dukakis realized that he was going to lose, he did not go quietly, but he did go with dignity. He stopped attacking his opponent and returned to the themes that give Democrats their identity. He preached them with passion (well, with what passes for passion with Dukakis) to ever-larger crowds as the campaign ended.

As a political performance, it was considerably superior to "Where is the outrage in America? Where is the outrage in America? Where has the media gone in America? Where is the outrage in America?"

The other day in University Park, Texas, Dole made the unlikely assertion that "the outrage starts right here at SMU." Right — Southern Methodist University, natural home of outrage.

The sorority girls will just whip those bows out of their hair and start a revolution.

Then there was the old media bias theme. "We've got to stop the liberal bias in this country. Don't read that stuff. Don't watch television. You make up your mind. Don't let them make up your mind for you." Dole owes his "outrage" theme to the media, which went out and dug up the Indonesian connection, just like we're supposed to, so this seems churlish of him.

As always happens when candidates attack one another instead of promoting their own ideas, we're all left with the impression that we have two terrible people vying for office, no one has any ideas and the system is so bad that it's not even worth voting.

I'm still unable to discern why BobDole thinks his character, whatever that means anymore, is superior to President Clinton's. Better war record, better war — that's about it. Dole has flip-flopped on issues and changed his stand at least as often as Clinton has and, given how much longer he's been doing it, probably a lot more often.

I was startled to see that according to two different estimates by two nonpartisan groups, Clinton has kept or tried to keep either 60 or 70 percent of the promises he made during his '92 campaign. The reason that startled me is because I've been buying into all the endless chatter about how he doesn't keep his word, doesn't stand for anything.

An indignant colleague from Washington, D.C., in "the liberal media" showed his bias by demanding, "Well, at least you've got to admit Clinton will do anything to get re-elected." Look at a rather large "anything" that's been staring the Washington press corps in the face for four years.

What branch of the media can you name that wouldn't kill for an interview with Chelsea Clinton? The duckling with braces on her teeth has turned into a lovely young swan before our eyes; she could be on the cover of every teen mag in the country. Name a newspaper that wouldn't love to interview her, or a television network, or a chat show (Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O'Donnell, Diane Sawyer) — every one of them displaying the charming, poised first daughter talking about what a wonderful dad our pres is.

Bill Clinton has never exploited his daughter for political purposes. She has gone through what is probably the single worst time of any human's life, her adolescence, without so much as a peep out of the scuzziest tabloids about "Chelsea's First Kiss" or any other nonsense. It takes some seriously hard work to keep a kid in the White House that protected. But her parents are widely deemed not to have a scruple between them.

Meanwhile, Dole is dragging this poor 43-year-old woman, his daughter Robin, all over the country with him. As far we anyone knows, they haven't been close since he walked out on her mother when she was 18. Character, anyone?

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.