TOPEKA — Democratic Rep. Alexis Simmons and former Kansas Republican Party executive director Kris Van Meteren stand uncommonly side-by-side against elimination of contribution limits applicable to political party committees.

The duo said on the Kansas Reflector podcast it would be a mistake to allow Republican or Democratic party committees to become spinning turnstiles for wealthy donors with the capacity to buy commanding influence over elections. They agreed a bill, approved by the Kansas House 77-46 and now undergoing scrutiny in the Kansas Senate, would distort campaigns by allowing donors with cash to burn to easily pick winners and losers.

“It’s going to fundamentally alter the amount of money that can be spent directly on electing a candidate,” Van Meteren said. “Under this law, they’re going to be able to give unlimited contributions to party committees, which can expressly advocate for their candidates.”

Both said they could see logic to House Bill 2054 ‘s doubling of contribution limits for candidates seeking election as governor and other statewide offices, the Kansas Legislature and State Board of Education. A $1,000 primary or general election donation to a gubernatorial candidate just didn’t buy what it did when that cap was set more than 30 years ago.

“I’ll acknowledge it’s probably due,” said Simmons, the Topeka Democrat. “But I don’t love it. I don’t love it because we’re in this moment where folks can’t afford to buy groceries, and we’re telling them the expectation is that they’re going to write larger checks to candidates.”

She said the legislation should be split into individual bills, because an increase in the contribution limit to candidates could advance while removal of the cap on party donations could languish. Bundling the two was a method of compelling legislators to swallow the sweet and sour of political reform, she said.

“Decent policy would be actually to raise the caps on those individual limits, but it forces legislators to also accept the party committee piece. I think it was very sneaky,” she said.

‘Throws open door’

In terms of the legislation, it’s important to distinguish a county or state party committee from a political action committee. Kansas doesn’t impose a contribution limit on PACs, but Republican or Democratic party committees can accept a maximum $5,000 each year from sources other than a national party. Another key difference: PACs cannot spend money in coordination with individual candidates, but political committees can use contributions to collaborate directly with candidates.

Simmons and Van Meteren said uncapping donations to party committees and allowing those entities to coordinate with candidates would give wealthy donors a huge edge in influencing nominations and elections. Simmons said the bill passed by the House ought to be renamed the incumbent reelection act.

“This legislation throws open the door to all kinds of corruption. We need legislators to stand up … and say, ‘This is not OK,’ ” Simmons said.

Simmons said it was useful to keep in mind the effort to make it easier for politicians to raise campaign cash came on the heels of a state law nearly doubling salaries paid members of the Legislature.

“It’s a shell game that they’re playing,” Van Meteren said. “What party committees are going to become is a pass-through straw man. Megadonors can give unlimited amounts of money to the party committee, who can turn around and then spend it on their candidates. It’s politician buying, in my opinion.”

Under the House-approved bill, donors could give $4,000 each primary and general election to candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer and insurance commissioner. State senators and state Board of Education members could accept $2,000 from a donor in both elections. State representatives would be limited to $1,000 from a donor in each of those elections.

During testimony to the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, Kansas attorney Josh Ney said laws mandating unconstitutionally low limits on donations had been struck down in federal courts across the country. Ney, who assumed a prominent role in urging the Legislature to alter state campaign finance law, said important questions were being raised in Kansas about the propriety of limiting donations to party committees.

“If the legitimate public purpose of campaign finance laws under the First Amendment case law is to prevent quid pro quo promises or corruption of elected officials, why are party committees limited and political (action) committees not?” Ney said.

However, a handful of House Republicans, including Reps. Scott Hill of Abilene and Bill Rhiley of Wellington, joined Democrats to oppose HB 2054.

“It allows the unlimited voice of those controlling the party to essentially force their speech onto any that are dissenting within the party,” they said in a statement. “Second, it allows major contributors of the party to control the voice of the party by their financial influence.”

‘Eye of the beholder’

During the podcast, Van Meteren and Simmons said also they were disappointed with work by legislators to advance House Bill 2206 redefining PACs, altering coordination rules among political groups and candidates, and giving new meaning to donations given in the name of another. The issues have been tied to campaign finance investigations conducted by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission or KGEC.

Van Meteren, who supported an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Kansas Republican Party to look into possible campaign finance violations by GOP politicians and organizations, said this bill would improperly legalize making donations in the name of another.

He alleged HB 2206 was part of a legislative agenda drafted or advocated by lawyers who represented individuals investigated by KGEC.

“Put more succinctly,” Van Meteren said, “it obliterates transparency and allows megadonors wishing to exercise an outsized influence over Kansas’ political and policymaking environment to mask their activities by directing funds through other entities to benefit of their favored candidates.”

He said this push to rewrite Kansas’ ethics law was a “self-serving effort to stall, block or thwart the KGEC’s investigation altogether or, at a minimum, weaken the penalties for violating existing laws.”

Ney, the attorney with clients investigated by KGEC, said the bill’s new definitions were meant to illuminate boundaries for financing political campaigns rather than leave statutes open to interpretation by KGEC.

“Otherwise, Kansans will be at the mercy of eye-of-the-beholder interpretations in enforcement actions without the benefit of prior notice,” he said. “Many of our clients have been on the receiving end of these lawmaking-by-enforcement actions from this agency.”

Kansas Reflector .