CHARLESTON — From rotten tomatoes to the Wizard of Oz, the debate over a divisive election reform bill ignited strong passions Thursday and at times bordered on the bizarre.

When the afternoon sun began to sink, however, no resolution was in sight.

Democrats in the House overwhelmed token Republican objections, crushing a flurry of amendments in the process, and passed the measure 64-19 after a lengthy debate.

But in the upper chamber, eight Republicans, enough to prevent a fourth-fifths majority of those present, delayed a final vote by refusing to suspend the rules.

Before that 19-8 vote, tempers flared in a heated exchange ignited when Majority Leader Truman Chafin, D-Mingo, blamed the Republicans for dragging their feet and costing taxpayers $37,654 each day the session is prolonged.

Chafin suggested the minority party explain to the taxpayers why they slowed the process on a bill aimed at giving them information about the folks bankrolling political ads targeting candidates for either election or defeat.

“I’m highly offended at that,” Sen. Andy McKenzie, R-Ohio, shot back at Chafin. “I think that’s a ridiculous argument.

“If we were truly worried about spending money, maybe we should have started this on Sunday (when interims began). Maybe if the majority party could get their act together ... when we start talking about money, it’s convenient to be goofing around half the time and not doing anything.”

Both chambers planned to be back at their desks tonight, and unless the GOP in the Senate concedes to a rules suspension, no final vote is possible until Saturday.

Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, a key backer of the bill, used a Hollywood film classic to illustrate why well-heeled corporations hide behind political ads without disclosing their identities and the amounts they spend to promote or defeat candidates.

Likening the popular dog to the election bill, Kessler said, “The Wizard of Oz was scared to death of Toto. He knew the dog could pull back the curtain.”

Not willing to let that go by, Sen. Vic Sprouse, R-Kanawha, said the real motive behind the bill was not to protect voters but to help Democrats keep Attorney General Darrell McGraw in office and get two Supreme Court justices elected this year.

Over in the House, Delegate Kelli Sobonya, R-Cabell, sought to tack on an amendment that would hold public office holders to the same scrutiny as private donors.

She dubbed it the “trinket amendment,” a veiled slap at McGraw, a figure of controversy in recent years for spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on items bearing his name.

“We say on one hand we want to level the playing field for the public and at the same time turn a blind eye and continue to allow office holders to perpetually campaign with public funds,” Sobonya charged.

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, are spent in West Virginia annually for perpetual campaigning by public officers.”

A better use of this would be to provide West Virginians tax relief, she said.

Delegate Lidella Hrutkay, D-Logan, took the debate in a new direction, speculating the Sobonya amendment might inhibit a public official from going via the media with a critical announcement, such as in a flood, or Agriculture Commissioner Gus Douglass, specifically, needing to warn about contaminated tomatoes after people begin “dropping like flies.”

A salmonella scare a few weeks ago heightened concerns about tomatoes, she pointed out.

In rebuttal, Sobonya and Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, reminded the House the limitations would only apply 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

Moreover, if a crisis flared, they said, Douglass or any other public official could still warn the public by merely using the office name, not the current occupant, or have a communications expert handle the announcement.

Countering a suggestion she could sponsor such a proposal as a standalone bill, Sobonya said she has tried every year in the House, even attempting an insert into the ethics law, but her idea has never been put on the agenda of the Democrat-controlled House.

Sen. Clark Barnes, R-Randolph, was armed with a similar amendment in the Senate in tonight’s session.

Judiciary Chair Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, told members the bill is needed to address “character assassinations and personal attacks,” noting she was singled out in an election by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

“They brought my law firm into this,” Webster said. “More importantly, they brought my husband into this.”

The House leader said large corporations now can spend huge sums to skirt election laws and undermine integrity in the political process by flooding voters with mailed propaganda.

“Mass mailings in West Virginia are where the rubber meets the road,” she added.

But Republican leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, and other Republicans warned the bill infringes on First Amendment guarantees to free speech.

“Make no mistake about it,” he said. “This bill is not simply about disclosure. This bill is about changing the definitions of how you can spend money.

“That is the key — the First Amendment.”

Lawmakers are attempting to rewrite a 2005 law that U.S. District Judge David Faber recently shot down. Further complicating the debate was a ruling Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court which some critics of the bill said disallowed much, if not all, of what the Democratic leadership is seeking to accomplish.

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com