Article Photos

CHARLESTON - State Sen. Jeff Kessler said a bill requiring full disclosure of who pays for political advertising has become "partisan legislation" in this election year.

As the West Virginia Legislature on Friday began a two-day extension of its special session, Democrats and Republicans traded jabs over who should take the blame for costing taxpayers an extra $70,000 by keeping legislators in Charleston to decide the bill's fate.

At issue is legislation championed by Kessler, D-Marshall, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that restores campaign financial disclosure requirements for non-broadcast election-time advertisements.

House Bill 219 is scheduled to have its third required reading before the full House today. Legislators have been in special session all week considering 19 bills placed on the call by Gov. Joe Manchin.

"We're here 'til Saturday," Kessler said after Republicans this week declined to waive the rule requiring three separate readings of the legislation. "All the bill does is require the advertising to say who is paying for it. It doesn't prohibit discourse or advertising. It merely requires disclosure. I look at it as a public information bill."

Kessler passed similar legislation in 2005 that recently was stricken down as unconstitutional in federal court. Kessler said U.S. District Judge David Faber ruled against it because the legislation didn't contain findings explaining why disclosure requirements were needed in non-broadcast advertising.

He said three pages of legislative findings as to why non-broadcast media should be subject to disclosure requirements have been added to the legislation. If passed, the new rules would go into effect in September - just prior to the general election.

"But now it has turned into a partisan bill," Kessler said. "There were some who supported it who now oppose it.

"I'm afraid it is because there are flood gates of money waiting to influence the outcome of races - the Supreme Court race in particular. As to who is wanting to influence our races, we don't know who they are because they don't identify themselves. They could be al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden for all we know."

Republicans, who overwhelmingly supported a similar measure in 2005, contend the current bill could violate free speech principles and will face legal challenges. Democrats counter that the public has a clear interest in knowing who's paying for election ads.

"Why are Republicans wasting time and money dragging out a special session to debate a clean elections bill that almost all of them supported in the past?" state Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey asked in a statement.

Each party is blaming the other for prolonging the costly session.

Democrats say it's costing $40,000 to $50,000 a day, although the actual daily cost will probably be closer to $37,000. Each lawmaker receives a $150 daily payment, and most also get $131 a day for travel-related expenses. Multiplied by 134 lawmakers, that's more than $37,600. But not every lawmaker will be present for the additional days, and some lawmakers - like those who live in Kanawha County - don't get the travel expenses.

Senate Minority Leader Don Caruth, R-Mercer, said he would normally worry about public disapproval for extending the session, but he believes people understand the importance of the legislation.

"I'm not worried about that this time, because I think this issue is so vital," he said.

The election bill is aimed at fixing a 2005 law that requires public disclosure of spending for ads that run within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election, and refer to "a clearly identified candidate." The fix is needed because U.S. District Judge David Faber ruled in April that non-broadcast ads are exempt from the 2005 law. The judge ruled the law's language is vague concerning media like mailings, phone calls, leaflets and e-mails.

The Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom, which was behind that initial legal challenge, has vowed to sue again if the current bill passes.

Although Republicans largely supported the bill three years ago, lawmakers from that party have changed their minds. Some now allege the measure would serve as protection for Democratic officeholders.

Sen. Vic Sprouse, R-Kanawha, is serving as a political consultant for the campaign of GOP attorney general candidate Dan Greear. He told the Senate on Thursday the bill is meant to aid Greear's Democratic opponent, Attorney General Darrell McGraw.

McGraw has been targeted for defeat by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - which would not be covered by the bill's provisions because it is already covered by other disclosure rules - and allied groups. Sprouse and other Republicans contend groups not currently covered by disclosure requirements would be dissuaded from criticizing McGraw by the election law.

House Judiciary Chairwoman Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, a key contributor to the bill, dismissed the charge as a "smoke screen."

It's almost certain that the bill will pass. Republicans can delay the vote by blocking a suspension of a constitutional rule requiring the bill be read on three separate days. That's what's causing the extension to Saturday. But the minority party does not have the votes to defeat the bill, and Democrats say they're determined to pass it.