LANSING — A House committee was considering legislation Wednesday that Republicans said would block tens of thousands of dollars in campaign finance funds from going into the pockets of two senators who are about to leave the chamber due to term limits.

But would it really?

The House Elections and Ethics Committee delayed a planned vote on Senate Bill 1022 after committee members weren't satisfied the revised language would prevent what one state representative called "extremely unethical" transfers of surplus campaign funds.

The bill had easily passed the Senate and was headed to the House without notice when the Free Press reported on Nov. 14 that it would result in significant financial windfalls for two Republican senators — Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, and Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion.

Each has tens of thousands of dollars of surplus in his Senate campaign fund — money they normally would not be able to keep for themselves but would have to return to donors or donate to a charity or certain types of political funds.

But Brandenburg and Marleau, who have not responded to phone calls about the legislation, both served in the state House before they graduated to the Senate and both have sizable debts in their old House campaign funds from loans they made to their committees when they were getting started in politics.

More:Bill could provide a potential $92K windfall for 2 Michigan senators

More:The most controversial bills in Michigan's lame duck legislature

As originally drafted, SB 1022 would have allowed each of them to transfer their surplus Senate funds to their old House committees so they could reimburse themselves for those loans. Such transfers are not permitted under current state law, because donors can give higher amounts to Senate committees than they can give to House committees.

Opposition hardened to the bill after the Free Press report, and the House made no move to take it up until late Tuesday, when Republican officials said a substitute bill would be introduced that would omit the wording to allow the Senate-House transfers.

The wording was omitted, but new wording added to SB 1022 caught the eye of Rep. Vanessa Guerra, D-Saginaw.

The added wording gave a new permitted way of spending candidate campaign funds — transferring the money to an officeholder's political action committee (PAC), often known as a leadership committee.

Both Brandenburg and Marleau have their own PACs.

Guerra asked if the two outgoing senators could move their surplus funds to their leadership PACs, and from there to their old House campaign funds.

"We are still digesting this bill, the changes to it," said Mike Batterbee, director of government affairs for the Secretary of State's Office. "I can't definitely answer your question at this time."

State Rep. Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor, said his understanding was that the intent of the substitute bill was to get rid of language that "allowed people to behave in extremely unethical manners."

"Since you can't answer that that's not going to be prevented, I've got to assume that it's not going to be," Zemke said.

"That's a huge problem. This is ridiculous."

Republican attorney Eric Doster, who said he testified at Wednesday's hearing as an interested citizen, not representing a client, said transfers from candidate committees to leadership PACs is already allowed, but the new language was intended to clarify that.

Fred Woodhams, a spokesman for the Secretary of State's Office, later confirmed that such transfers would be allowed, but subject to a range of restrictions.

In terms of one such restriction, under current law, if senators could transfer surplus campaign funds to a leadership PAC, that PAC would be able to donate no more than $10,000 to a House campaign fund. That provision could limit the amount of the senators' loans that could be repaid.

If such transfers are legal, it's hard to understand why they should be, said Craig Mauger, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.

"Candidate committees are supposed to be used to advance an individual candidate," Mauger said. "Even in lame duck, it's hard to comprehend how a term-limited lawmaker giving money to a PAC that can then hand the money out without restraint advances that term-limited person's candidacy."

The Elections Committee chairman, Rep. Aaron Miller, R-Sturgis, agreed to postpone a planned vote on the bill until the committee could get answers.

Guerra told the Free Press she thinks someone was trying to slip one by the committee.

"I think the House Republicans tried to make it seem like they made significant changes to this," she said. "All of it was a cover-up."

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4.