Campaign Finance Flashback; Selling Government on Layaway

Way back in March, the Associated Press had a story about Ethics Commission machinations and some odd contingencies surrounding whether elected officials would have to return above-limit contributions collected during the period before the legislature's repeal of individual giving limits was struck down by the state supreme court.

The story included a curious and (so far as I can tell) still unexplained loophole enunciated by the Ethics Commission (emphasis added):

In all, the commission is letting the 11 politicians keep more than $205,000 in over-limit donations. And if lawmakers approve new legislation to remove the fundraising limits, another $121,000 won’t have to be returned....

Richard, R-Joplin, doesn’t have to return $1,275, must refund $300 and will have to return about $83,000 if the lawmakers don’t repeal the fundraising limits this session. Tilley, R-Perryville, doesn’t have to return more than $31,000. Icet, R-Wildwood, doesn’t have to refund $1,275 but will have to repay $34,000 if the limits aren’t repealed.

Has any reporting on this been done since?  Has anyone explored what will happen now that the legislature has again passed a bill to repeal campaign finance giving limits? 

It seems a rather important point, since --if the AP story is accurate-- a minimum of $117,000 will now presumably remain in the campaign warchests of two top Republican legislative leaders by virtue of legislative action in which they themselves played critical parts.

Can GOP leaders like Richard and Icet explain why they chose to push the Ethics Commission to allow them to play by different rules than everyone else?  Can they explain whether the campaign cash that hung in the balance was a key determinant of the Republican leadership's decision to move the contribution limits repeal legislation through the chamber?

And can the Ethics Commission guarantee that the opportunity to keep money raised during the previous period of no limits is confined to the legislators whose appeal was described in the March AP story, or is the door open for other campaigns to try to keep still-unreturned over-limit contributions in light of the new repeal?