WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Efforts to rein in the activities of special interests have intensified in a few states, where political influence-peddling and campaign fund raising are increasingly viewed by voters as the same thing.

In Arizona, a bill has passed the Legislature that would force lobbyists to report on the states Web site the names of candidates to whom they contribute or for whom they solicit money. Lobbyists would also have to disclose any campaign-finance committees on which they serve, a requirement that could prove embarrassing since lobbyists routinely show up as members of incumbents advisory or fund-raising panels.

In addition, if signed into law by Gov. Jane Dee Hull, the bill would prohibit lawmakers from using state premises and resources, such as office phones or email, to raise money.

A similar bill may also soon be headed for a vote in the Tennessee House. But it would include tougher reporting and disclosure requirements for candidates at both the state and local government levels. The bills sponsors hope to eliminate any appearance of conflicts by shining an intense light on contributors.

An Iowa bill resembling the Arizona measure has also made its way through at least one chamber of the legislature, but it has now been relegated to the pile of unfinished business that lawmakers may not get to this year.

In Wisconsin, home to U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, legislators are predicting a round of new efforts aimed at reducing the role of special-interest money in statewide elections. Bills likely to be offered in the Legislature this year may be modeled after the U.S. Senate-passed McCain-Feingold measure, which places limits on union- and corporate-sponsored campaign-issue ads and bans unlimited "soft money" donations to the national parties from corporations, unions and individuals.

Wisconsin State Sen. Mike Ellis has already introduced one bill aimed at controlling the influence of special-interest money in state campaigns. His bill, dubbed the "Clean Government Campaign Plan," does not bar corporate or union contributions. But it imposes voluntary fund-raising and spending limits on candidates and provides for partial public funding of statewide and legislative races.

Ellis said in an interview with Stateline.org that he believes his bill goes much further than McCain-Feingold in addressing the soft money issue because it takes away the "financial advantage of special-interest groups by matching their expenditures dollar for dollar" with public funds.

"These matching funds would kick in whenever a candidate goes over [the agreed upon] spending or fund-raising limits or when an independent, outside group runs ads or sends out mailings on behalf of a candidate that goes beyond the limits," Ellis said. "State parties would even be treated as independent groups under my bill - my bill is fair because it treats everybody the same and makes them play by the same rules."

Though few Wisconsin lawmakers give Ellis measure much chance of passing this session -- a similar bill he sponsored failed last year -- he believes the media attention focused on the campaign finance battle in Congress has raised awareness of problems at the state level.

At least two states -- Connecticut and Alaska -- have already gone where no state or the federal government has gone before. They have banned soft money contributions to the parties and have set tougher rules governing special-interest fund-raising activities.

In March, a legislative committee in Connecticut also approved another bill authorizing taxpayer financing of statewide campaigns. A similar measure passed last year but was vetoed by Gov. John Rowland. He has threatened the same fate this year for the revived measure.

But like Ellis, the Connecticut bills sponsors feel the reform winds are blowing in their direction, given the momentum of the McCain-Feingold measure and public-opinion polls showing Americans believe special-interest contributions