Attorney General Jay Nixon’s campaign delivered a letter to the Ethics Commission today in which he says he is returning all of his overlimit contributions.

That amounts to roughly $1.3 million for Nixon.

Gov. Matt Blunt’s campaign spokesman, John Hancock, called soon after to say that the governor plans to return his $4 million or so in overlimit donations as well.

The one caveat for Blunt: First, his campaign wants the Ethics Commission to make clear that other candidates in his “class” have to return their overlimit money as well.

But Hancock said that clarification shouldn’t affect the donation returns.

Meanwhile, later Monday, the campaign for state Sen. Chris Koster, D-Harrisonville, sent a short statement saying he would return the money as well.

“Today, Missourians for Koster notified the Missouri Ethics Commission that they intend to begin the process of returning contributions from individuals in excess of current contribution limits.”

Here’s Blunt and Nixon’s letters to the commission, in the order sent to Politicial Fix.

First, from Nixon campaign manager Ken Morley:

“The people of Missouri, the Supreme Court, and now the Missouri Ethics Commission have all spoken. Campaign contribution limits are once again the law of the land. All who believe the 1st Amendment rights of wealthy special interests are no more important than the rights of regular Missourians should celebrate this development.

“I am writing today to inform you that Nixon for Governor recognizes that the Supreme Court’s ruling to reinstate contribution limits applies retroactively to January 1, 2007. The campaign will return contributions received in excess of the newly reinstated limits in accordance with the Court’s ruling. These adjustments will be complete by December 31, 2007 and will be reflected on our regularly scheduled January 15, 2008 report.

“We inform you of this decision without knowledge of whether other candidates seeking the same office or in the same class will also agree to comply with the newly reinstated contribution limits. In your letter of November 15 you outline a process by which a candidate could seek to claim that abiding by the newly reinstated contribution limits, and reimbursing excess contributions when necessary, constitutes a “hardship.” It is our belief that if a candidate has sufficient cash on hand, then returning excess contributions in order to be compliant with the law is not a hardship.

“We therefore believe that circumstances do not exist under which a candidate for Governor could in good faith request, or that the Ethics Commission could conceivably grant, a hardship in this instance.

“It is possible, however, that not all candidates in our class will act in good faith and willingly comply with the new law. It is because of this that we are gravely concerned that the hardship process established in your November 15 letter is not open and transparent. If any candidate seeks to argue that returning contributions in excess of the limits somehow constitutes a hardship, the public deserves to know. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Commission determines to grant a hardship, the public deserves to know how the Commission arrived at its decision. Because we believe this process should be open and transparent, it is our intent to make this communication public.”

Now, Blunt’s letter, signed by lawyer Thor Hearne:

“I am in receipt of your letters directed to Missourians for Matt Blunt Inc. (MMB) dated November 13 and November 15, 2007. In your letter of November 13 you provided notice, pursuant to ¤ 105.959.1 RSMo that, as the result of the recent decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in the ease of Trout v. State, the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) conducted a review of MMB’s campaign finance reports. In your letter of November 15th, you elaborated on the nature of this review and provided a document which summarized the MEC’s conclusions.

“The MEC’s summary listed contributions received by MMB that MEC claims exceeded the previously enacted campaign finance limits during the period of January 1, 2007 to July 19, 2007. This summary shows that the methodology used by the MEC was to examine only contributions made during the time period described above. The MEC should be advised that these are not the only contributions which are in question. The MEC’s methodology may have understated the aggregate overlimit contributions for candidates by failing to address whether the candidate previously received additional contributions that exceed the contribution limits when aggregated with contributions received during the relevant time period. We do not agree that the MEC’s methodology in preparing this summary is correct.

“In your letter of the November 5, the MEC also advised MMB that the Commissioners had not made a decision about whether the Trout v. State decision would be applied retroactively. You further advised MMB of its right to participate in a ‘closed” hearing that would be considered a contested ease conducted pursuant to the provisions outlined in ¤ 536.063 to 536.090 RSMo.At this hearing, representatives of MMB would be able to present evidence of “good faith, reasonable reliance and injustice or hardship” which could persuade the MEC to adopt a prospective application of the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in the Trout case.

“After deliberating on this matter, MMB has decided that it will decline your invitation to participate in such a hearing. We believe it clear that this should be only applied prospectively. The campaign acted lawfully and in good faith when it received and deposited these contributions. However, there is a need for final and complete resolution of an increasingly confusing and disorderly situation. We will comply with and final and lawful decision of the MEC as soon as we are able to do so.

“However, due to the continued uncertainty, MMB is not able to return the amount by which contributions during the relevant time period exceeded previously enacted limits at this time. Several questions remain notably, a question remains regarding what constitutes a “hardship.” Further, there have been assurances that all members of a “class” will be treated similarly. Thus, if a member of a class is able to successfully argue for a prospective application, the decision will be applied prospectively with respect to all members of that “class.” Yet, what constitutes a “class” remains undefined. Unfortunately, we are unable to act until final determinations are made with regard to these two questions or until decisions have been made with regard to the existence of a “hardship” among a member of our class.

“We urge the Commissioners to adopt a standard that applies to all candidates that is uniform and consistent with state and federal constitutional precedent and established principles of due process.

“Above all, MMB desires a speedy resolution to this matter and urges the MEC to act expeditiously….”