The Kansas Legislature is teeing up to review campaign finance laws in 2024. It should come as no surprise that such proposals occur against a backdrop of strong public skepticism about their motives.

A recent Pew Charitable Trust poll found that 80% of Americans believe that “the people who donated a lot of money to their political campaigns” have too much influence over members of Congress, while 70% agreed that “the people in their districts” have too little. These supermajorities cut across party lines and may help explain the rise of “outsider” candidates such as former President Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. To quote the classic 1976 film “Network,” the American people are “mad as hell” and we’re “not going to take it anymore.”

Congressional campaigns are regulated by federal, not state, finance law. However, most Americans do not care about the finer differences between federal and state laws; they simply believe that money has too much influence on politics. Also, Kansans do not have a particularly high opinion of the Kansas Legislature either. In the 2023 Kansas Speaks poll, only 2.8% of Kansans reported being “very satisfied” with the Legislature, and an additional 28.3% reported being “somewhat satisfied.” This total of 31.3% satisfied means that the Legislature’s approval ranks lower than that of Gov. Laura Kelly, the Kansas Supreme Court and Sens. Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall.

The current push to change the law stems from a 2022 dustup in Overland Park. Led by Mark Skoglund, the Kansas Ethics Commission investigated Fresh Vision OP, a group that sent out mailers advocating for a mayoral candidate. Fresh Vision OP’s leaders insist that it is a 501(c)(4), a type of nonprofit, but Skoglund suspected that it was actually a political committee. Shortly after that, some members of the Legislature began criticizing Skoglund for letting his law license lapse.

Earlier this year, the Legislature considered House Bill 2391, which would have rewritten campaign finance law. It did not pass, but they will be back at it this coming year. Unfortunately, HB 2391 contained several provisions that would weaken transparency.

For example, current law requires independent groups to disclose whenever there is a finding of “cooperation or consent” with a political campaign. HB 2391 would have required it only when there is “coordination,” which is defined as “express advocacy.” This is not necessary: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that campaign finance law may go beyond express advocacy. Narrowing the requirements would create a loophole allowing independent groups to advocate for candidates without disclosing the sources of their funds. HB 2391 would also have removed the Kansas Ethics Commission’s subpoena power, greatly weakening their ability to investigate. Finally, the bill would have created a disclaimer, “No solicitation shall be considered a violation of this act if such solicitation is accompanied with a disclaimer that it is not intended for lobbyists, political committees or persons other than individuals.”

The simple appearance of this disclaimer, plus the loss of subpoena power, could block the ability of the Kansas Ethics Commission to take any further action.

There are legitimate reasons to revisit Kansas’ campaign finance laws. Current laws may ensnare a well-meaning candidate whose communication accidentally falls into the hands of lobbyists, when that was not their intention. That said, HB 2391 was a bad bill and should not be revived. Skepticism toward campaign finance is running high. This is no time to make disclosure requirements even easier to evade.

— Michael Smith is a professor of political science at Emporia State University.