Kansas needs to do more to open the books on how political campaigns are being financed.

Big-money politics. There doesn’t seem to be any other kind. That’s why it’s so important for the public to know where the money that is driving political campaigns comes from. And, in case the source of some of that money might influence voters, they need that information before the election, not months later after officials already are in office.

Kansas isn’t the only state in which elections are being influenced by large donations from individuals and corporations, but the state’s lax laws concerning the reporting of campaign contributions have earned Kansas a low rating by public interest groups that monitor such trends.

In an attempt to remedy the situation, the Kansas Ethics Commission plans to recommend reforms during the upcoming session of the Kansas Legislature. Kansas residents should make sure those recommendations aren’t overlooked by state legislators — who, after all, run campaigns of their own and may balk at providing more timely and complete information to voters.

Among the issues the ethics commission will address is the timing of campaign finance reports. Current law requires political action committees to file reports on their donors as well as the candidates they support. However, the last pre-election reports are due in mid-October. This year, the filing deadline fell 11 days before the Nov. 2 general election.

Because the next reports aren’t due until January, there’s no way to know how much money was taken in or spent during the last 11 days of the campaign, but the amount probably was substantial in hotly contested races. Blanket mailings and television advertising are expensive, but they can have a significant impact in the closing days of a campaign. The ethics commission hopes to require political action committees to report the source of late campaign contributions within 24 hours of receiving them to ensure timely information for voters.

Another target of the ethics commission are groups that produce so-called “issue ads.” Although these ads often clearly favor one candidate, if they don’t specifically advocate a vote for or against a candidate, the group that produces the ad never has to file a finance report. This is a huge loophole the state must close.

Groups that would be affected by campaign finance reforms cut across the spectrum. They oppose taxes, favor abortion rights and support both liberal and conservative candidates from both parties. The common denominator is their ability — and perhaps desire — to hide information that should be available to the voting public.

In the age of Internet communication, there is no excuse for the state not to demand more timely and complete reporting of who is giving how much to support various candidates or political causes. It’s only right that voters be able to access and assess that information as part of their decision-making process.