It does little good to require reporting of campaign contributions if that information isn’t made available in time to have an impact on the election.

That weakness in the Kansas campaign finance system is a major reason for the failing grade the state received in a new national report card issued by the Campaign Disclosure Project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The purpose of reporting campaign contributions is to allow the public to know who is providing financial support to candidates. That gives votes an opportunity to decide for themselves whether the contributions a candidate receives might influence his or her stand on certain issues or whether the candidate might feel beholden to certain individuals who made large contributions to their campaigns.

Unfortunately, in Kansas, contributions made in the closing days of political campaigns aren’t required to be reported until months after the election. At that point, the contribution lists are interesting but old news. The late money may have had a significant impact on the election outcome, but the information about those contributions had no impact because it wasn’t available to the public.

A vivid example of this circumstance occurred last November when Dr. George Tiller of Wichita gave more than $150,000 to the campaign of Democrat Chris Biggs, who was running against Republican Phill Kline in the Kansas attorney general’s race. Because Tiller performs abortions and has been the object of anti-abortion protests in Wichita, his contributions might be construed as support for Biggs’ pro-choice leaning and an effort to defeat Kline, who many believe may seek to restrict legal abortions in Kansas.

There may be other possible motivations for or interpretations of Tiller’s late contributions to the Biggs campaign but, especially because of the amount of his financial support, voters deserved to be aware of it before they went to the polls. Obviously, Kline won the election. Maybe the information would have increased the margin of his victory or maybe it would have resulted in his defeat. Whether or not it had a significant impact, it should have been out there for the public to see.

It’s true that not many average voters probably examine contribution lists before heading to the polls, but if those lists are available, it allows the media and other election watchers who do monitor such things to call attention to contribution sources and amounts that are noteworthy enough that they might interest voters.

In the age of Internet communication, there is no excuse for the long delays the state accepts for campaign finance reporting. This and other deficiencies cited by the Campaign Disclosure Project deserve the full attention of Kansas legislators. However, because many of the legislators will be candidates themselves next year, some public pressure may be required to spur them into action. This is an important issue that shouldn’t be ignored.