By STEVE KRASKE and JASON NOBLE
The Kansas City Star

How can Missouri clean up its politics?

Stiffen penalties, critics say. Guarantee a yearly budget for the Missouri Ethics Commission. Halt the laundering of campaign donations. Crack down on lobbyists and “pay for play.” Reform term limits.

With three St. Louis-area Democratic lawmakers convicted in recent weeks — for accepting bribes or obstructing justice in connection with campaign finance investigations — the prospects for reform have brightened, some lawmakers say.

The reform talk comes at a time when Missouri politics are being buffeted by new forces. Consultants such as former House speaker Rod Jetton are accused by lawmakers of crossing the line between getting lawmakers elected and lobbying them on issues.

House Speaker Ron Richard, a Joplin Republican, said in a statement he would urge legislative leaders from both parties to “reinforce the seriousness” of existing laws.

Democrats also have proposed several amendments to state ethics laws over the last few years. Rep. Jason Kander, a Kansas City Democrat, is proposing new measures for the upcoming legislative session, including:

•A state-level pay-for-play prohibition, making it a felony for lawmakers to accept anything of value in exchange for specific legislative action. Currently, such crimes can only be prosecuted under federal bribery laws.

•A prohibition on transfers between certain campaign committees. Donations are often funneled through multiple committees, which can obscure their source and, Kander said, hide instances of pay for play, where legislation is tied to campaign contributions.

•An expanded definition of a lobbyist. Political consultants who work for elected officials and corporations or interest groups with issues before the legislature would be required to register as lobbyists and publicly disclose their clients.

•An increase in financial disclosure requirements. More legislative staffers would be required to disclose their personal finances, revealing if they’ve done political work that might compromise their official duties.

Kander said the recommendations will be drafted into bills prior to the start of the legislative session in January.

But the most critical change that’s needed, some lawmakers and legislative experts say, is a softening of the state’s term limits for legislative office.

Critics say arbitrary limits throw out good lawmakers with the bad and actually vest power with less accountable players in the political system, such as staffers, bureaucrats, lobbyists and consultants.

State government is too complex to learn in so short a time, past and present lawmakers say.

“I felt like after eight years I was in my prime,” said former House member Patrick Naeger, a Perryville Republican who was termed out in 2002. “I knew what was going on. I knew how to get things done, how to make things work. And then I was gone.”

The first great exodus came in 2002, when over 70 House members were termed out. In 2010, the last few senators who won election before limits were enacted will leave office.

Two bills were filed in the most recent legislative session to extend term limits, a constitutional change that would require a vote of the people.

One bill would remove the eight-year limits in each chamber but keep the 16-year cap on total legislative service, allowing lawmakers to serve eight terms in the House, four in the Senate or some combination.

The other would increase the limits in both chambers to 12 years, so officials could serve six terms in the House, then three in the Senate.

Neither bill, however, made it out of committee this year.