he young boy walked to the microphone to ask the question he carefully crafted for a campaign forum staged at his elementary school:
''What is the most important thing you need to run for president?'' he asked. The quick and easy answer - money - was not so easy to give to a gymnasium full of fourth-graders.
Sure, you can talk about political ads and make a sprightly comparison to TV commercials that pitch the latest toys. But even the most consumer-savvy kids expect a higher-minded reply when it comes to explaining what it takes to become the next president of the United States. So, here it is.
Money fuels American politics. It remains the key to media credibility. It can buy lots of ads, consultants, and pollsters. But it can't buy every heart, mind, and vote. And in this election season, it has yet to close the deal for either presidential candidate.
In order to wage their primary and general election campaigns, Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore both raised enormous amounts of money - $187 million for Bush and $133 million for Gore, according to figures supplied by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
On top of that, the Democratic Party raised $178.7 million and the Republican Party raised $214.2 million in so-called soft money.
''This year clearly makes 1996 look quaint in terms of money raised and spent ... What we see are huge amounts of donors giving huge amounts of money to both parties,'' says Scott Harshbarger, president of Common Cause, the Washington-based advocacy group.
As Election Day approaches, this week's headlines are flush with news about the millions Bush and Gore are spending on last-minute advertising barrages in battleground states. But this final ad blast is only a piece of the money equation.
Money turned Bush, a two-term Texas governor with an ordinary record, into the candidate to beat in his own party. Money helped Bush crush an unexpectedly strong primary challenge from Arizona Senator John McCain - who made campaign finance reform the foundation of his underdog quest for the presidency.
In fact, McCain's primary campaign push for campaign finance reform represented a brief moment when the power of the people trumped the power of their money.
How disheartening for those who took McCain, the presidential candidate, at his word and now watch McCain, the would-be defense secretary, grin at Bush's side.
Gore, of course, promises campaign finance reform if he gets to the White House, and he describes Bush as the captive of corporate special interests, even as he accepts money from the same kind of special interests.
But all the millions spent on pollsters, focus groups, and consultants, which, in turn, result in more millions spent on a blizzard of TV ads are not clinching the race for Bush or Gore.
''There is no evidence at all that television advertisements in the swing states are having a major influence,'' notes Harshbarger. The voters' refusal to buy the advertised message put out by either major party candidate is buttressed by the ability of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader to break through with his reform message.
Perhaps voters are imposing their own kind of campaign finance reform, in lieu of institutional campaign finance reform. Clearly, during this election cycle, voters are judging the candidates based on factors that fall outside the realm of paid advertising. They include debate performances and appearances on television shows like David Letterman and Oprah Winfrey.
Voters, it seems, are struggling to cut through the clutter of paid, packaged messages, in an effort to take the real measure of the man - or as close to the real measure as you can get through a television lens.
If, in the end, money doesn't dictate this election outcome, that will be be good news to the students at the Peter W. Reilly elementary school in Lowell.
But the bad news is this: It doesn't eliminate the need for campaign finance reform. Money still narrows the field of candidates. It still dictates who has access after one candidate wins election.
As Harshbarger notes about money and American politics, ''It's about people paying to play. It's about what chits will be called in. It's about what will come home to roost - what did it purchase?''
Try explaining that to a gymnasium full of fourth-graders.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
