It’s not unusual to be asked if I would support an amendment broadening the scope of my bill.

It happened at the hearing on my bill dealing with campaign committees for referendum and ballot issues campaigns. House Bill 247 would require these committees to disclose on the Internet within 24 hours any contribution received during the last two weeks before Election Day.

These midnight contributions are not a hypothetical problem. In 2008, the committee supporting the slots referendum listed $2.7 million in contributions in the report that was filed on November 25, three weeks after Election Day.

“Should we extend your bill to loans?” asked one member of the Ways and Means Committee.

“Should this apply to candidate committees as well?” questioned another.

“Both are consistent with my bill,” I responded. “If it’s the wisdom of the committee to add those circumstances, I would not object.”

What happened on my other election bill was a first.

Each of the last three years, my Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House of Delegates but never received a committee vote in the Senate.

“This bill is déjà vu all over again with a lineup change,” I began my testimony.

Last year’s bill has been pared down to one provision, I explained. If an individual or group violates – or there is reasonable grounds to believe is about to violate, the existing prohibitions on voter fraud or dirty tricks, the Attorney General or any registered voter can ask a judge for preventive relief, instead of waiting until the horse is out of the barn door on Election Day.

A delegate began reading from the statement of an interest group supporting legislation that was broader in scope than my bill.

“That was last year’s bill,” I replied.