03/06/2007

By KELLY WIESE  / Associated Press

A judge considered Tuesday whether legislators violated procedural restrictions in passing a law that removed campaign contribution limits.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan heard arguments in the case but did not rule. He asked attorneys to submit proposed rulings within a week.

The lawsuit seeks to toss out a law passed last year lifting individual contribution limits and making other changes to campaign finance laws.

The judge on Jan. 8 temporarily blocked one provision of the law banning fundraising by lawmakers, statewide officials and candidates during the legislative session, which began in January and runs through mid-May.

In that ruling, Callahan said the Legislature did not address concerns raised by a federal judge who struck down a similar Missouri legislative session fundraising ban in 1996 as an unconstitutional infringement on free-speech rights.

The rest of the law remains in effect, though the legal challenge seeks to strike the entire thing down as unconstitutional.

The judge indicated he was inclined to at least make permanent his earlier decision on the fundraising ban — and the attorney general's office offered no new defense Tuesday — and focused questions on the level to which he can parse out other parts of the law to strike down or uphold.

The law eliminated individual contribution limits; banned cash contributions to candidates from political parties; prohibited certain people from running for office; and imposed new Ethics Commission reporting requirements on lobbyists.

The lawsuit points to Missouri constitutional requirements that a bill have a clear title and single subject and prohibiting lawmakers from changing a bill's original purpose. Those requirements were the focus of Tuesday's hearing.

Attorney Chuck Hatfield, in challenging the law, argued its final title of "relating to ethics" was unconstitutionally broad.

"Everything from accountants to zookeepers could be ethics," he said.

But Callahan said if the wording is interpreted to mean areas under the Ethics Commission's responsibilities, it might be acceptable.

The judge also noted it's rare for courts to toss out a law because it changed from its original purpose.

The man who filed the lawsuit, James Trout, who plans to run for the Legislature in 2008 after losing last year, took issue with not being able to spend his own money on his campaign while the Legislature is meeting.

The lawsuit also seeks to strike down a provision disqualifying candidates who are delinquent on property taxes for their home or for a state-contracted license office. The lawsuit claims that violates the constitution's equal protection clause because the law does not disqualify those late on taxes for their farms, apartment buildings or other corporations.

The attorney general's office questioned whether Trout, of Webster Groves, has standing to sue on that point, saying he is merely a taxpayer, not someone who would be thrown off the ballot because of the law. The state said being a taxpayer is not enough because the law doesn't result in improper spending of taxpayer money.