December 16, 1999

Most States Now Offering Campaign Data Online

By REBECCA FAIRLEY RANEY

ust four years ago, details on contributions to state political

campaigns were locked up far from public view. In Illinois, for

example, residents had to travel to state offices, identify themselves

and explain why they wanted to view the records.

But now, according to two recent studies, most states are unlocking

the filing cabinets and posting details about campaign contributions

on the Internet. Illinois, once considered one of the states with the

worst disclosure practices, is now viewed as a model.

In fact, Illinois was ranked first nationwide in one of the most

comprehensive studies on the issue to date. As part of the Digital

Sunlight Awards program, the result of an 11-month research project,

each state received rankings based upon an extensive list of criteria.

The research was conducted by the nonprofit California Voter

Foundation in Sacramento and financed by the Joyce Foundation in

Chicago.

Related Articles

Senate Campaign Data Trapped in the Microfilm Era

(September 29, 1999)

New Rules Prompt Speedy Access to Data on Presidential

Candidates

(July 23, 1999)

Ron Michaelson, executive director of the Illinois State Board of

Elections, said the battle for disclosure has been hard-fought. State

law imposes no spending limits on campaigns, and no source, including

corporations, is prohibited from contributing. In fact, as recently as

November, a legislator introduced a bill that would have dismantled a

law requiring campaigns to file their contribution data

electronically. But strong public support for disclosure quashed the

bill.

"People in Illinois spend a lot of money in campaigns," Michaelson

said. "This may be a further impetus for reform in Illinois, when

people see how much money is being spent and the sources of that

money."

Just behind Illinois in the study results was New York, followed by

Michigan, California, Hawaii, Louisiana and Virginia. Most of these

states are set to offer campaign data on the Internet starting in

2000. The Illinois system will be introduced in January and will allow

online searches by names of donors and other variables.

The state initiatives will put many of them ahead of the federal

government on disclosure issues. President Clinton signed a bill in

September that requires political action committees and candidates for

the House to file reports electronically with the Federal Election

Commission starting in 2002. The information will be posted online

within a few hours of filing. The Senate is exempt from the new

requirement, and a cumbersome reporting system often delays public

availability of its campaign data for up to six weeks.

The Digital Sunlight project's evaluations of state programs were

based on more than 20 separate criteria, with information gathered

through research and interviews with election officials in all 50

states. Questions included whether legislatures provided money for the

programs, whether campaigns were required to file contribution data

electronically, how easily the data could be searched and sorted and

how easy it was to use the agencies' Web sites.

"Hopefully people can use our findings to help move their states

forward," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter

Foundation. "This is a very promising area in political reform."

A separate study, whose findings were also released last week,

supported the conclusions of the Digital Sunlight program.

Craig Holman, director of the campaign finance project at the Center

for Governmental Studies, a research institute in Los Angeles, said

that "the whole world of electronic filing and disclosure has changed

phenomenally" since he started researching the issue in 1996.

"Even if legislatures don't want to see it happen, they can only delay

it for so long," Holman said. "This is a technology that has a life of

its own."

The number of states that require candidates to file data on computer

disks -- allowing the numbers to reach the public quickly -- increased

by 27 percent in the last year, Holman said. Last year, of 68

jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, 16 required candidates

to file data electronically. This year, that number increased to 22

jurisdictions. The number of states and provinces offering some

campaign finance data on their Web sites has also risen over the last

three years, to 49 from 15.

Holman collected his data through written surveys sent to the

jurisdictions, then followed up on the written responses with

telephone inquiries.

Not all state officials share Holman's optimism that electronic

disclosure is inevitable. In South Carolina, policy makers have

presented no plans for such a system. The state ranked last -- No. 50

-- in the Digital Sunlight research.

Cathy L. Hazelwood, general counsel for the South Carolina State

Ethics Commission, said she was not surprised by the state's low

ranking in the study.

"That's right where we'll be until the General Assembly says, 'We want

to address that,'" Hazelwood said. "If we went to them and said, 'We

need $100,000 to implement this,' we'd get laughed out of there."

Election officials in many states have overcome great difficulties in

getting disclosure programs approved. Politicians were often skittish

about approving legislation that could reveal too much about the

financing of their campaigns. In California, for example, six separate

bills to approve electronic disclosure programs were killed by the

state legislature. The seventh bill passed in 1997.

In states that have successfully created such programs, election

officials persevered and implemented the systems gradually, Alexander

said. In many states, test periods were instituted in which candidates

were invited to file their records on disk voluntarily. Generally,

fewer than 1 percent filed voluntarily. Still, the tests allowed

election officials to build public confidence in the system before the

mandatory filing requirements began.

In New York, officials ran tests in 1998 before requiring candidates

and committees to file reports electronically. In the first month

after the state's system was introduced in July, more than 1,000

candidates and committees filed their reports electronically. The

state Board of Elections posted the data on the Web within 24 hours,

allowing visitors to search for information by donors' names, dollar

amounts and candidate names.

"The first day, there were so many hits on it, it went down a few

times," said Thomas R. Wilkey, executive director of the New York

State Board of Elections, whose program won the No. 2 ranking in the

Digital Sunlight Awards. The new system, he said, brought a great

improvement to the quality of campaign finance disclosure in the

state.

"What we used to have was basically a piece of paper," Wilkey said.

"It broke my heart to go downstairs and look at the gnomes down there

with their pens and their adding machines. This is an incredible step

forward."

Related Sites

These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The

Times has no control over their content or availability.

Digital Sunlight project

Joyce Foundation

Center for Governmental Studies

Links to individual state campaign finance disclosure agencies

Rebecca Fairley Raney at rfr@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and

suggestions.

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace

Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. |

Business | Technology | Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial |

Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions | Job Market | Real

Estate | Travel

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company