After passage in the House, a campaign finance bill is on the verge of passage in the Senate, after a Senate committee dramatically raised the amounts of money that could be contributed to Wyoming’s elected legislators and state officials.

   Originally, House Bill 9 (Campaign finance reporting) was drafted in response to a 2006 incident where a Natrona County political donor used a political action committee (PAC) to give more money to a candidate for county commissioner, than was allowed under limits on individual contributions.

 

   Under current law, Wyoming has no limits on state PAC contributions to candidates.

 

  “We asked legislators to consider putting a limit on PAC contributions,” said Dan Neal, executive director for the Equality State Policy Center. “They did, but then they raised the individual contribution limit to the sky.

 

   Neal said he hoped the Senate will either lower the limits or simply kill the bill and try again next year.

 

  Currently, Wyoming law allows individuals to give a maximum of $1,000 per candidate per election (primary and general elections are considered two separate elections). Wyoming law also imposes an overall individual contribution limit of $25,000 for all elections within a two-year election cycle.
 

   As now proposed in HB 9, an individual can give up to $3,500 per candidate, per election.

 

   “That’s even more than the individual limit in races for Congress ($2,300), and those are much more costly races,” said Neal.

 

   Also as proposed by HB 9, state PACs can contribute $7,000 per election, or up to $14,000 per election cycle. That’s far more than federal PAC limits of $5,000 per election and $10,000 per cycle.

 

   Ironically, said Neal, Wyoming is a relatively inexpensive state when it comes to running election campaigns. Data from 2006 races indicates that the average cost of a winning general election campaign was about $11,700.

 

   So why is more money warranted?

 

   It comes down to power or influence, said Neal.

 

   “Public confidence in elections is not served by allowing candidates to get more money from fewer donors,” Neal said. “Lower limits mean that candidates have to convince more people that their campaigns are worth supporting. They help keep candidates in touch with what voters want.”

 

   Senator Ken DeCaria, D-Evanston, tried and failed to get the dollar amounts lowered in a Tuesday meeting of the Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee.

 

   All that remains is a third reading, a conference between House and Senate and final votes.
-30-