It might just be worthwhile to consider that those Kansas House and Senate members we’re depending on to fix the state budget have already gone through one of the wildest spending sprees in memory.

That wild spree? It was their campaigns to get to hang out at the Statehouse. Now that the dust has settled and the signs have been pulled up and stored in the garage for the next campaign cycle, we’re learning just how much dust was raised during legislative campaign races—and the cost of that dust.

Figures released by the Kansas Secretary of State show that the candidates fighting for the right to represent you in Topeka spent nearly $8 million for the honor—and that’s just for the candidates who made it through the primaries to the big dance, the general election.

The 125 campaigns for seats in the Kansas House totaled $3.8 million, averaging $30,400 but ranging widely from nothing—for an unopposed candidate who won reelection—to $109,000—for a candidate who lost.

In the Senate, the campaigns ranged from $10,500 each for two winning candidates to a whopping $204,000 for another winner who realized that in campaigns, only a fool loses with money left in the bank on Election Day. In total, Senate candidates who made it to prom night spent a total of $4 million in their battle to represent their districts. The average per-race cost is about $100,000, about right, we figure, for districts that are about three times bigger than House districts.

Tens of thousands of dollars also were spent last year by candidates who were weeded out at the primary election in August, who presumably now have the signs, the campaign cards, maybe T-shirts to show their friends and children and grandchildren—to reminisce about their dabble in electoral politics.

That’s a lot of money to spend on campaigns, and the sheer size of the efforts is going to raise thoughts about too much money in politics. It’s a natural.

Except…for the uneven results. It wasn’t only money that won the majority of votes for successful candidates—ask the Democrat who spent that $109,000 on his Johnson County campaign and was defeated by an incumbent Republican who spent “just” $51,000 on his campaign.

If you enjoyed the direct mail from candidates, the phone calls, the brochures, the radio, TV and newspaper advertising in the 2008 election cycle, chances are good that you won’t have to go cold-turkey in the 2010 election cycle.

Why? Well, for all the money spent on the just-completed campaigns, there’s already money on hand for the upcoming battles. In the House, where, remember, the election is just 22 months away, incumbents and their defeated general election foes have $1.9 million in the bank. In the Senate, where it’s just 46 months to the next general election day, incumbents and their just-vanquished challengers have $1.5 million on hand.