Surprise, surprise. California lawmakers are increasingly exploiting a legal loophole to skirt campaign finance limits.

Somewhat restrained by a $4,100 per election cap on what they can solicit from individual contributors for campaign accounts, lawmakers are taking advantage of "campaign measure" committees. That allows them to raise unlimited funds from special interests, ostensibly to support or oppose a ballot measure, but also to organize lavish junkets and dole out favors to friends and others in their political machines.

Las Vegas is a favored destination. Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, has a "California College Opportunity" ballot committee. He has spent three-fourths of his committee funds on fundraising, including wining and dining 25 guests on an overnight stay at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, held a fundraiser for his "Believing in a Better California" committee at a 2012 Las Vegas prizefight. Later he spent more than $2,000 on "thank-you gloves" to 21 lobbyists and other power players who attended the fundraiser.

Lawmakers, including Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars from these committees on "consultants," but don't have to detail how that money is spent. Is it expended on ballot measures? Or does some of the money go to consulting that benefits the lawmaker behind the committee, without that being reported?

At their best, these kinds of committees allow lawmakers to promote initiatives that benefit California. At their worst, they are slush funds for lawmakers to parcel out patronage, while allowing special interests to ingratiate themselves with lawmakers without restrictions on the dollars contributed.

The Federal Election Commission several years ago ruled that members of Congress could not raise money in excess of federal contribution limits. But a questionable ruling by a Sacramento Superior Court judge has allowed California lawmakers to operate these slush funds with little oversight.

The only people who can close this loophole are lawmakers themselves. They should do so. If they fail to act, the loophole needs to be closed through the initiative process.