Money in Politics More Transparent in Some States Than Others; 33 States Receive Passing Grades
The Pew Charitable Trust, October 25, 2004

LINK

Grantee Press Releases
Grantee Contact:
Saskia Mills or Kim Alexander, 530.750.7650 Pew Contact:
Cindy L. Jobbins, 215.575.4812

Davis, CA -- October 25, 2004 -- As Election Day approaches, voters in some states will find it easier to follow the money than in others, according to Grading State Disclosure, a comprehensive, comparative study of candidate campaign finance disclosure laws and practices in the 50 states, now in its second year.
Washington State again ranked number one in the country, followed by California and Florida. Seventeen states' disclosure programs failed the assessment, which was conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project, a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law. The Project seeks to bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics and is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

"While there were still the same number of failing grades in 2004, the overwhelming majority of states did make some improvements to their disclosure programs," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which produced the study. "However, there is still tremendous progress to be made before voters across the country have equal access to the information needed to follow the money and cast an informed vote on Election Day."

The Campaign Disclosure Project evaluated four areas of campaign finance disclosure: state campaign disclosure laws; electronic filing programs; the degree to which the public can access campaign finance information; and the usability of state disclosure web sites.

Of the 33 passing states, eight received grades in the A or B range, up from only two in 2003. Washington received the highest grade and rank, California ranked second with an A-, and Florida came in third with a B+. Among the study's significant findings:

States with the best overall campaign finance disclosure programs, in rank order from one to ten, are: Washington; California; Florida; Georgia; Illinois; Michigan; Ohio & Rhode Island (tied); Texas; and Alaska & Kentucky (tied).
States with the weakest overall campaign finance disclosure programs, in rank order from 41 to 50, are: Nevada; New Hampshire; Montana; North Dakota; New Mexico & Vermont (tied); Alabama; South Dakota; South Carolina; and Wyoming.
Tennessee was the most-improved state, climbing from 46th place to 27th place, followed by Georgia, which moved up seventeen places to number four, and California, which improved from 9th to 2nd place.
Tennessee was the most-improved state, climbing from 46th place to 27th place, followed by Georgia, which moved up seventeen places to number four, and California, which improved from 9th to 2nd place.
Among the four grading categories, the most improvement was found in Online Contextual and Technical Usability, followed by Disclosure Content Accessibility.
Each state was assessed, graded and ranked for its overall performance as well as its performance in each of the four grading categories. States across the country performed best in the Campaign Disclosure Law category, with forty states receiving passing grades and ten states failing. Twenty-one states passed in the Electronic Filing Program category, while twenty-nine failed. Twenty-eight states passed in Disclosure Content Accessibility, and twenty-two failed. Twenty-nine states received passing grades in Online Contextual and Technical Usability, while twenty-one failed.

"I think a number of states took last year's grades to heart and made a real effort to improve in 2004," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. "I hope the trend continues into 2005, especially among the seventeen states with overall failing grades."

Grades were based on criteria developed by the Campaign Disclosure Project partners, the Project's Advisory Board and a panel of expert judges, who also assisted with the grading process. The Project set a high, but not impossible, standard for state campaign finance disclosure programs. Efforts were made to balance the concerns of practitioners and government officials against the public's need for timely, complete and effective disclosure.

Assessments of each state were based on research of state laws as of December 2004, web site visits and research from January to June of 2004, responses from state disclosure agency staff and activists working on campaign financing at the state level during the same timeframe, and web site testing by outside evaluators in June 2004. State grades are a reflection of not only the work of state disclosure agencies, but also state legislatures and governors, who are responsible for enacting and funding state campaign disclosure laws. The Campaign Disclosure Project will repeat the assessment and issue a third round grades in 2005 to measure progress in the coming year.

For more information (on your state), visit The Grading State Disclosure web site that features an updated assessment of each of the fifty states, a U.S. map of the states color-coded by grade, comparison charts, and campaign disclosure statistics.

Executive Summary

A second nationwide assessment of state-level campaign finance disclosure programs has found that 33 states again received passing grades, and 17 states failed the evaluation and have unsatisfactory campaign disclosure programs. The overall numbers of states passing and failing in 2004 is the same as in 2003, although two states which failed last year received passing grades this year, and two that passed last year received an F in 2004.

Twenty-one states have better grades in Grading State Disclosure 2004 than in last year's assessment, and overall, states made the most substantial progress in the grading categories of Disclosure Content Accessibility and Online Technical and Contextual Usability. While the same number of states failed the assessment this year as in 2003, the quality of disclosure across the country did improve, even in some of those states with low grades. Forty-three states made at least one improvement in their campaign finance disclosure practices, while seven states made no measurable improvements, including Arizona, Connecticut, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Grading State Disclosure is a 3-year study by the Campaign Disclosure Project – a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law – and is supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The study is the first comprehensive, comparative study of candidate campaign finance disclosure laws and practices in the 50 states; the 2004 assessment presents findings from a second round of state evaluations. This year's findings provide a review of nationwide and state-by-state changes over the past year. The states that have improved the most since 2003 are: Tennessee, Georgia, California, Indiana and Florida. Although the findings reveal a significant amount of progress, only eight states received grades in the A or B range, indicating that the vast majority of the states still have room to improve campaign finance disclosure for state-level candidates.

Grading State Disclosure 2004 evaluated four specific areas of campaign finance disclosure: state campaign disclosure laws; electronic filing programs; accessibility of campaign finance information; and the usability of state disclosure web sites. Of the 33 passing states, only two received overall grades in the A range. The top-ranked state, Washington, received an A, and California was a close second with an A-. Other top states include: Florida (B+), Georgia (B), Illinois (B), Michigan (B), Rhode Island and Ohio (B-, tied), Texas (C+) and Alaska and Kentucky (C+, tied). Seventeen states received F grades.

Significant findings include:

50 states require disclosure of a contributor's name and address.
28 states require disclosure of a contributor's occupation and employer.
34 states require late contribution reporting.
39 states require independent expenditures to be reported.
21 states have mandatory electronic filing for statewide and/or legislative candidates.
17 states offer voluntary electronic filing for statewide and legislative candidates.
12 states have no electronic filing program.
47 states post campaign finance data on their web sites.
30 states provide searchable databases of contributions online.
20 states provide searchable databases of expenditures online.
20 states provide summaries of total amounts raised and spent by current candidates.
3 states – Montana, South Carolina and Wyoming – have no campaign finance data available on their web sites.
Significant improvements since 2003 include:

2 states added electronic filing programs.
3 states removed an opt-out provision from their mandatory electronic filing programs.
3 states converted voluntary electronic filing programs to mandatory electronic filing programs for statewide and/or legislative candidates.
7 states improved how quickly campaign finance data is available online.
4 states added searchable databases of campaign contributions to their disclosure agency web sites.
4 states added searchable databases of campaign expenditures to their disclosure agency web sites.
3 states added features that allow campaign finance data to be downloaded in an Excel-compatible format.
8 states added or made enhancements to summary campaign finance analysis information on their web sites.
Grades were based on criteria developed by the Project partners, the Project's Advisory Board and a panel of expert judges, who also assisted with the grading process. The Project set a high, but not impossible, standard for state campaign finance disclosure programs. The grades were based on a state's performance in the area of candidate disclosure only; lobbying, conflict of interest, ballot measure and party organization disclosure were not evaluated.

Assessments of each state were based on legal research, web site visits and research, web site testing by outside evaluators and responses from state disclosure agency staff and activists working on campaign financing at the state level.

Glossary

Accrued Expenditure – an expenditure that is not paid at the time a service is provided. Accrued expenditures are debts owed by the campaign to political consultants or other vendors for good or services such as direct mail or campaign signs.

Amendment – a correction or revision made to a campaign finance report.

Committee – an entity established by a candidate, political party or other organization for the purpose of raising and spending money and filing required campaign statements with detailed information about campaign contributions and expenditures.

Desk Audit – a review of a campaign finance disclosure report as it has been filed by a political committee. In a desk audit, documentation other than the actual campaign finance disclosure report, such as canceled checks, bank statements and vendor receipts, are not reviewed.

Disclosure – in the context of campaign financing, disclosure means making information about campaign contributions and expenditures known to the public.

Electronic Filing – the process by which political committees and candidates disclose campaign contributions and expenditures in an electronic format. Electronically filed campaign finance information can be submitted via a web-based filing system, e-mail or computer disk. Candidates typically use either a standard filing format provided by the state, or filing software provided by the state or an outside vendor.

Field Audit – an in-depth review of a campaign finance disclosure report and other documentation related to the campaign finance report, including canceled checks, bank statements and vendor receipts, to verify the accuracy of the report.

Independent Expenditure – an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, but which is made independently of any candidate's campaign. An example of an independent expenditure is a campaign ad run by an issue organization in support of a specific candidate for office. (Source: Federal Election Commission)

Itemized Data – breakdowns of contributions received or expenses made by a committee, such as listings of individual contributions with the contributor's name, address, occupation, and employer . (By contrast, an example of unitemized data would be when a committee reports the total amount of all contributions under $100, but does not provide detailed information about the individual transactions that make up that total figure. )

Last-minute Contribution or Late Contribution – a contribution (often large) that is received by a committee after the closing date for the final statement filed before the election, but before the election takes place. Many states require supplemental reporting of individual last-minute contributions made in the last days and weeks prior to Election Day.

Last-minute Independent Expenditure or Late Independent Expenditure – an independent expenditure that is received by a committee after the closing date for the final statement filed before the election, but before the election takes place. Many states require supplemental reporting of last-minute independent expenditures made in the last days and weeks prior to Election Day.

Loan Guarantor – a person who guarantees that a loan to a campaign will be repaid. Often financial institutions will not lend money to a candidate or campaign unless there are private individuals who guarantee that they will repay the loan if the campaign cannot.

Mandatory Review – the process by which a state's campaign finance filing agency, often the Secretary of State, is required to examine campaign statements that are filed with its office, typically either through desk or field audits.

Reporting Period – the specific time period covered by a particular campaign finance statement.

Standard Filing Format – a uniform or standard technical format set forth by a state government which committees or candidates can use to file campaign finance disclosure statements electronically. The standard format ensures that all candidates' filings can be integrated into the state's internal data system or system of Internet disclosure.

Subvendor – a third party, such as a political consultant, who makes an expenditure on behalf of a campaign. For example, when a political consultant receives funds from a campaign and purchases TV time for the campaign, the campaign must report the consultant's expenditures if subvendor disclosure is required. Credit cards can also fall into the subvendor category because detailed information about expenditures can be found in credit card statements. If the campaign only listed the credit card company in its expenditure report, the public would not know the actual expenditures of the campaign.

Subvendor Information – detailed information, including name and address, about subvendors.

Supplemental Filing – a campaign finance report that is filed in addition to regular campaign finance filings. Supplemental filings are often last-minute contribution statements, independent expenditures statements, or last-minute independent expenditure statements.

Threshold – a monetary value at or above which a candidate must disclose campaign activity. The threshold can apply to the contribution amount that will trigger a campaign to disclose detailed information about a contributor. Or, the threshold can apply to the total amount of money raised or spent that will require a campaign to file campaign finance reports electronically.