Published: June 25, 2008 10:14 pm      

Election reform extends session

CHARLESTON — A tug-of-war over a disputed election reform that demands full disclosure of anyone running ads to influence voters and how much they spend has prolonged a special legislative session by at least one day, and possibly into Saturday.

Democrats hold more of the rope, but Republicans showed no signs of letting go as the debate heightened Wednesday.

Neither side, it appeared, was ready to give in.

“It looks like the way it’s going now we’re going to see it through,” Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, D-Logan, told reporters when asked if the leadership would yank the time-consuming bill.

“Obviously, if we have the same problem of not being able to suspend the rules, we’re going to be staying in town a lot longer than we anticipated.”

House Republicans mustered enough votes to block the leadership from suspending the rules and accelerating a vote. Republicans in the Senate were prepared to put up similar roadblock in today’s session. The bill was at third stage in the House with the right to amend.

Suspending rules requires four-fifths of those present — a difficult number to achieve at times.

“A lot of members feel very strong about it,” Tomblin said.

“And the more I look at it, I think if you’re running an ad or campaigning to influence a public election one way or the other, then I feel there’s nothing wrong with letting the public know who’s paying for those ads. As a candidate, I have to report every contribution I get and every penny I spend and what I spend it on.”

The measure seeks to require full disclosure on political ads so any targeted candidate knows who is paying the freight when attacked in the media.

But Republicans view it as a chilling of free speech and pointed to vague language as reasons to stall passage until legislators can more carefully analyze it in the regular session next winter.

“This is the kind of bill that needs a lot of consideration,” Senate Minority Leader Don Caruth, R-Mercer, complained shortly before the showdown in the upper chamber.

“It’s complicated in the first place. It’s just too complicated to do this close to an election when there’s a federal injunction already on the last bill that we did.

“All things considered, it’s just going to be a train wreck.”

- - -

In a late afternoon session, the Senate gave final approval to a bill tightening the bookkeeping scrap metal dealers must perform when catalytic converters are brought in for sale.

Intent is to crack down on thefts of the devices, inspired by the federal Clean Air Act three decades ago.

Gov. Joe Manchin vetoed a similar bill in March, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, jokingly pointed to one critical correction — substituting the erroneous term “plutonium” for “platinum,” the element that drives the thievery.

“We can all sleep at night, knowing it’s platinum,” Kessler quipped.

Senators also whittled from $205,000 to $30,000 an appropriation Manchin wanted for the Office of Economic Opportunity, leaving only money to cover pay increases. The Senate then approved two training tracks for greyhounds, with Sen. Mike Green, D-Raleigh, a breeder, excused from voting.

- - -

On the election measure, Caruth complained that insufficient study went into the bill, leaving unanswered questions about who would be covered and who wouldn’t be affected.

A proposed Republican amendment in the Senate would specifically cover the governor and all members of the Board of Public Works, as well as the state Supreme Court.

Manchin was under pressure by fellow Democrats to stick the measure on his 12-point agenda for this special session, designed at the outset to focus on teachers retirement.

The underlying intent of the election measure was to clarify provisions that a federal judge considered too uncertain when he enjoined the state from enforcing a 2005 law back in April.

Idea of that bill was to compel non-candidates and other individuals or groups who aren’t now required to file disclosure reports to come across with clearly identified names and amounts spent.

In his edict, U.S. District Judge David Faber exempted non-broadcast ads, including e-mails, telephone messages and an assortment of printed paraphernalia, from the required reporting.

Save for pamphlets and fliers, the Faber ruling also would restore disclosure for all non-broadcast ads.

Another element that bothered Caruth was the lack of experts in elections to provide input. The senator pointed out that Secretary of State Betty Ireland cannot comment since she remains mired in the lawsuit that prompted Faber’s ruling.

“I’m not going to file a lawsuit, but I suspect someone will file a lawsuit when the bill is passed,” Caruth said.

“And it’s entirely possible we could be under two injunctions. If one of those third parties is interested in becoming involved in an election, which law do you follow?”

— E-mail:

mannix@register-herald.com