The recent anonymous political attack on City Commissioner David Schauner highlights the need to resuscitate proposed campaign laws before the Legislature, reform supporters say.

“This provides all the more impetus to get a handle on these issue cards and who is behind these things,” said state Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence.

Schauner was the target of mailers that accused him of domestic abuse — a charge he denied. The cards contained no identification as to whom they were from or who paid for them — although local printers said that plumber Mike Capra approached them about printing cards with similar language.

In some states, people or groups behind such mailers are required to identify where their funding is coming from.

But that isn’t the case in Kansas. Groups that provide information about a candidate, but don’t expressly support or oppose a candidate, are not required to file statements that show who has contributed to the group.

“There may never be any information disclosed (on the ads against Schauner), because they are issue advocacy ads, and our laws don’t touch it,” said Carol Williams, executive director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.

Issue advocacy campaigns

A bill drawn up by the Ethics Commission was introduced during the legislative session that would have required groups that conduct issue advocacy campaigns to report how much they spend and raise and who is giving them money.

The measure is all but dead this year, according to some legislative leaders. The Legislature adjourned April 1 and will return April 27 for its wrap-up session.

Plumber linked to campaign postcard (04-05-05) Rally supports clean campaign (04-04-05) Group rallies to end negative campaigning (4-3-05) Mysterious postcards target Schauner (4-1-05) Commission candidate targeted through postcards (3-31-05)

But last week, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said the legislation needed to be revived

“It has a lot of bipartisan support. I think it’s a good, reasonable bill that moves us forward on disclosure,” Sebelius said.

The bill has failed to come out of a Senate committee, where the primary opposition is from conservative Republicans.

Mays derails coalition

In the House, a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats planned late in the session to add the issue advocacy bill onto another bill during debate on the House floor.

But House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, squelched the attempt.

“He doesn’t want to see that loophole closed,” Davis said. “He’s looking out for those conservatives who have benefited by the actions of Americans for Prosperity,” he said.

Americans for Prosperity is an anti-tax group that mailed postcards and broadcast radio ads during last year’s elections, telling voters that it appreciated the work of certain conservative candidates who opposed raising taxes.

But Mays said he stopped the coalition’s attempt in the House because the proposal would have prompted a long, divisive debate, and probably would have failed.

He said the proposed bill looked like “a sneak attack” by Democrats.

On the issue of whether groups such as Americans for Prosperity should be required to file campaign finance reports, Mays said he was undecided.

“That’s an issue for another session,” he said.

Conference proposals await

Remaining campaign finance issues include three proposals currently in a bill hammered out by Republicans in the House and Senate.

The bill includes a provision that would require identification of the sponsor of telephone messages that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

It would also require that campaign contributions of $300 or more during the 11 days preceding the election must be reported within two days.

Currently, there is a “blackout” period starting 11 days before an election where contributions are not required to be reported until months after the election. For example, in the recent city commission races, contributions made in the last 11 days of the campaign won’t be reported for another nine months, until January 2006.

Also included in the bill is a provision sought by many officeholders thinking of trying to attain higher office. The proposal would allow politicians to be able to transfer campaign funds from one race to another should they seek election to a different office.