c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com, or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.)

UNDATED _ In these dog days of summer, the only news seems to be about the financial scandals surrounding the last presidential campaign (scandals that little interest most Americans despite stern lectures from pundits that they are obliged to be interested). But little attention has been paid to the biggest scandal of all: The United States has become a plutocracy, a country ruled by and for the rich.

Technically, one person, one vote is still the rule of law, so a wealthy man has no more votes than a poor one. But the rich have much more influence over the political process because of the contributions they can make to election campaigns. Moreover, because Republicans are the party of the rich, they collect far more money than do Democrats. They also serve the rich much more effectively than Democrats serve the poor.

Election playing fields are tilted in the direction of the rich and will remain so tilted until limits are in place restricting campaign giving. Only after such limits are imposed will both major parties have equal resources, and the rich and the poor will be equally represented in the competition for votes.

Consider these facts provided by the Federal Election Commission:

_ In the 1996 election, the Democrats raised”hard money”_ or funds donated to specific candidates or campaigns _ of $121 million, the Republicans $409 million.

But in all the news stories about mysterious fund-raisers and campaign contributions from China and Indonesia, we never hear that the Grand Old Party had nearly twice the money as the Democrats. How can elections be fair if one party has so much more money?

_ In”soft money”contributions _ or funds donated to the party _ the Democrats gained ground but not enough to level the playing field _ $121 million for the Democrats, $149 million for the Republicans.

Soft money _ the area in which the Democrats are said to have cheated _ still gave the Republicans an edge. And the GOP argues it came by all its funds honestly. Sure, and Cardinal O’Connor is a Mormon.

Even if Republican fund-raisers cut no corners, it’s still scandalously immoral that so much wealth can give one party a powerful advantage in an election.

So how come no one notices?

Yes, there are rich Democrats, too, though not as many. And the Democrats aren’t committed to soaking the poor like the Republicans are.

Remember, it’s the Republicans who want a $500 per child tax credit for those earning more than $200,000 a year. It’s the Republicans who dismiss a negative income tax for the working poor as”welfare.”And it’s the Republicans who would deny food stamps to illegal immigrants, while inundating the wealthy with gratuitous cuts in the capital gains tax.

So to get his much-touted balanced-budget deal, the president made some trade-offs: the working poor get $500 per child, elderly legal immigrants get food stamps, and the rich get their capital gains. Not a bad deal for the rich, and not a bad return on their contributions, either.

Deals like this only increase the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country.

The president’s so-called victory for the working poor does not make the current budget deal anything more than another big victory for plutocracy. Unfortunately, such victories will continue until the impact of money on elections is eliminated from American life.

MJP END GREELEY