Could a Mondale Senate win help curtail election campaigns and their spending?

If former Vice President Walter Mondale should win a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota, some are suggesting it might give new energy to ongoing but frustrating efforts to limit election campaign periods and spending.

Mondale has agreed to run for the Senate in place of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, killed recently in a plane crash. Democrats quickly turned to the retired Mondale and he accepted the challenge at age 74.

“Paul cannot be replaced,” commented Mondale. “But his passion for Minnesotans and their needs can inspire us to continue the work he began.”

Wellstone had been involved in a tough re-election battle against Republican Norm Coleman, a former mayor of St. Paul, Minn. The race is one of several that could determine control of the U.S. Senate, which Wellstone’s death left in a 49-all split. There is one independent who leans to the Democrats.

Wellstone’s son, David, and the rest of the family asked Mondale to make the run. A new poll shows that 98 percent of Minnesotans recognize Mondale’s name and that 66 percent have a favorable image of him. He is a formidable replacement.

But the election is right around the corner and it is uncertain whether the 11th-hour substitution will be successful, considering Republican Coleman has been running strongly against Wellstone.

The idea of a shorter, less costly campaign period makes sense, but Mondale may not be a typical example.

Mondale previously has been a Minnesota senator, a vice president and a candidate, in 1984, for president. Following his defeat in the presidential race, he was named U.S. ambassador to Japan. All these positions have given him name recognition far above what would be normal for a candidate who entered a major political contest only a short time before the election.

True, a strong, hotly contested primary race would add to the name recognition, but nothing compared to what Mondale enjoys.

Also, although he may not carry some of Wellstone’s political baggage, it should be remembered a good number of Minnesota voters know nothing about Mondale and many who did know him did not vote for him. He was a senator from 1964 to 1977, so many voters have no knowledge of his votes and political leanings during his time in the Senate, and there is little way for them to know where he stands on many of today’s pressing issues such as Iraqi policy, how best to fight terrorism, the national economy, crime, poverty, education, health care and many other issues. Have his viewpoints changed since he was in the Senate 25 years ago?

Again, efforts to shorten the campaign period and reduce the costs of organizing and sustaining an effective campaign are to be applauded, but it would be wrong to suggest a Mondale win in Minnesota is a legitimate yardstick to use in arguing the case for a major change in how we conduct national elections.

Political campaigns at virtually every level of our society run far too long, and have done so for some time. Spending continues to increase, and there is good reason to believe that reasonable limits should be imposed.