CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- At least some lawmakers haven't given up on their quest to regulate independent political advertising and corporate political spending in West Virginia.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler wants to revive legislation that died in his committee during the recent regular session.

The failed bill marked the latest effort to at least limit spending by corporations that directly target specific candidates. It also furthered attempts to require financial disclosures from independent groups and individuals that single out candidates with election-time advertising.

Separate rules already mandate campaign finance reporting by candidates as well as political action committees and parties. But a pending legal challenge has twice prompted federal judges to block the prior bids to expand the state's regulations.

West Virginia bans corporate spending in ways that expressly advocate a candidate's election or defeat. The federal rulings have limited that ban to messages that rely on such explicit phrases as "re-elect'' or "vote against.''

But those judges rejected attempts to define the "functional equivalent'' of "express advocacy'' as too vague to follow or enforce, leaving them unconstitutional. The measure sought by Kessler invokes language crafted by Chief Justice John Roberts in a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the topic.

The bill, which had passed the House, defined that sort of advocacy as any message that has "no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.''

"We're left with a statutory definition that does not pass constitutional muster,'' Kessler said. "We were invited and given an opportunity to correct that. I thought (the bill) was a golden opportunity to bring our statute into compliance.''

Lawmakers plan to return next month to pass a new state budget. The Marshall County Democrat hopes the measure joins the special session agenda that Gov. Joe Manchin plans to present then.

"I've floated the idea with the Senate president of taking another run at it during the special session,'' Kessler said Friday. "Since it's such a narrow and focused attempt, it seems silly for us not to do it.''

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- At least some lawmakers haven't given up on their quest to regulate independent political advertising and corporate political spending in West Virginia.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler wants to revive legislation that died in his committee during the recent regular session.

The failed bill marked the latest effort to at least limit spending by corporations that directly target specific candidates. It also furthered attempts to require financial disclosures from independent groups and individuals that single out candidates with election-time advertising.

Separate rules already mandate campaign finance reporting by candidates as well as political action committees and parties. But a pending legal challenge has twice prompted federal judges to block the prior bids to expand the state's regulations.

West Virginia bans corporate spending in ways that expressly advocate a candidate's election or defeat. The federal rulings have limited that ban to messages that rely on such explicit phrases as "re-elect'' or "vote against.''

But those judges rejected attempts to define the "functional equivalent'' of "express advocacy'' as too vague to follow or enforce, leaving them unconstitutional. The measure sought by Kessler invokes language crafted by Chief Justice John Roberts in a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the topic.

The bill, which had passed the House, defined that sort of advocacy as any message that has "no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.''

"We're left with a statutory definition that does not pass constitutional muster,'' Kessler said. "We were invited and given an opportunity to correct that. I thought (the bill) was a golden opportunity to bring our statute into compliance.''

Lawmakers plan to return next month to pass a new state budget. The Marshall County Democrat hopes the measure joins the special session agenda that Gov. Joe Manchin plans to present then.

"I've floated the idea with the Senate president of taking another run at it during the special session,'' Kessler said Friday. "Since it's such a narrow and focused attempt, it seems silly for us not to do it.''

Kessler believes at least some of his committee members misunderstood the effects of the bill when they rejected it 9-8 in the regular session's final days.

"I was sort of absolutely flabbergasted that my committee was not willing to bring our statutory definition of express advocacy into compliance with the highest court of the land,'' Kessler said. "Some of them have since said to me, 'I wish I knew then what I know today.'''

But the issue remains among the Legislature's most contentious in recent years. The divide has fallen along party lines, with Republicans alleging such measures target their campaign supporters.

Their concerns over the previous, 2008 attempt at these rules -- an attempt that triggered the second federal ruling -- lengthened a special session last summer as a result.

The bill that failed in Kessler's committee exempted nonprofit corporations that exist solely to promote "political ideas.'' While that helped win over some House GOP opponents -- six of 28 Republican delegates present voted for its passage -- other legislators don't want to revisit the failed bill.

Senate Minority Leader Don Caruth noted the findings of the federal rulings. The Mercer County Republican also faults the basic approach of such legislation.

Businesses and socially conservative groups have been behind the sort of ads cited by the advocates of such rules. Labor organizations also run such ads, but don't have to disclose who provided the money because it comes from membership dues, Caruth argued.

"The bill has never been anything other than lopsided to me,'' Caruth said. "It is not a political fairness bill, but is rather a bill which will create greater disparity, depending upon how a particular political advocate fits under the definition.''

But Kessler has an ally in West Virginia's chief elections officer. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, a Democrat, inherited the pending legal challenge when she took office in January.

"We most definitely want that clarified and straightened out,'' Tennant said. "We would be in support of Chairman Kessler trying to get that put on.''