The Legislature is considering a few pieces of legislation regarding elections, some more helpful than others.

Senate Bill 5153 would bring some badly needed transparency to campaign donations, creating a new class of political action committee. As reported by political columnist Jerry Cornfield of the (Everett) Daily Herald last week, groups have taken advantage of the current system to shield the source of donations. The bill would require “incidental committees” to file reports with the state Public Disclosure Commission if they spend $25,000 or more on a campaign for a statewide ballot measure or office and would require identification of donors who contribute $2,000 or more.

Recent political campaigns, particularly for initiatives, have seen incredible growth in spending. The campaign against I-522, which sought labeling of food products using genetically modified ingredients, raised more than $21 million in 2013. And the drive to privatize liquor sales in the state, I-1183, raised more than $20 million in 2011. With that much money flowing to campaigns, it’s imperative that voters know where that support is coming from.

House Bill 1323 would do away with the annoyance of voting for ballot questions that are little more than straw polls. The legislation would scrap the “advisory” questions found on statewide ballots that seek nonbinding votes for tax measures the Legislature has already voted on. The advisory votes were a provision of Tim Eyman’s I-960, passed in 2007. But during the last two general elections, the state has spent more than $250,000 to include the advisory votes in the voter’s pamphlets. That’s $250,000 spent on advisory votes that carry little weight among legislators.

Senate Joint Resolution 8201 seeks an amendment to a state constitutional requirement that initiatives not have a significant effect on the state budget. The legislation is, supporters admit, a reaction to the passage of I-1351, which now requires the state to hire thousands of teachers and other education workers at a significant cost, without providing a method of funding for itself.

Passage of 8201 would require a two-thirds majority in the Legislature and approval by voters, but the bill already has about 40 senators, Republican and Democratic, lined up in support.

Not surprisingly, the bill has drawn criticism from Eyman, who has made initiatives, especially those on tax issues, his career. Eyman makes the point that any initiative that would attempt to make itself revenue-neutral by imposing a tax or by cutting programs would violate the constitution’s prohibition against initiatives addressing more than one issue.

The frustration with I-1351 is understandable, but the Legislature should be careful with amendments to the constitution and with the people’s right to place initiatives on the ballot. The Legislature’s effort to secure agreement among two-thirds of itself would be better spent in amending or suspending I-1351.