Plugging In The Public: Chapter 2

Chapter 2 COMPUTERIZATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE INFORMATION
	COMMON PROBLEMS OF "PAPER ONLY" DISCLOSURE SYSTEMS OVERVIEW OF COMPUTERIZATION AND ELECTRONIC ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS CREATING A CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE DATABASE THE COST OF COMPUTERIZATION COMPUTERIZATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS AT FIVE AGENCIES CHART A: COMPUTERIZATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA COMPUTERIZATION Strong disclosure laws will always be fundamental to opening campaigns to public view and to aiding enforcement of the campaign finance laws. However, even the best laws can fall short of meeting these goals when information detailing a candidate's fundraising activities is obscured in a maze of data, in reports that are hundreds of pages long. Converting this information from paper reports to a computer database is the key to deciphering the data quickly and easily. When campaign disclosure reports remain only in paper form, following the money that flows in and out of campaigns is a Herculean task for the press, the public, and campaign researchers. Likewise, audits of candidates' reports for compliance with the law is difficult, time-consuming, and, in some jurisdictions, impossible to complete for months or even years after the election. A number of disclosure agencies are combating these problems by computerizing campaign finance information in publicly available databases. Computerization, as distinguished from electronic filing, does not mean that filers must supply campaign finance information in an electronic format. Rather, it refers to the format in which campaign finance information is stored and retrieved after it is received by the disclosure agency. This chapter describes the ways in which the failure to computerize campaign finance data can frustrate the purposes of disclosure laws. It then gives an overview of computerization and electronic access to campaign information across the country. Recommendations for developing a campaign finance disclosure database and providing electronic public access are provided, as well as a discussion of costs. Finally, the chapter describes computerized campaign disclosure systems at five disclosure agencies. COMMON PROBLEMS OF "PAPER-ONLY" DISCLOSURE SYSTEMS During a day-long visit to the State Administrative Board of Election Laws of Maryland, the Center uncovered a sample of the problems typically found at agencies across the country that do not computerize information from campaign disclosure reports. The first problem encountered was the lack of security. Due to a shortage of storage space, the Board does not maintain duplicates of disclosure reports for public use. Instead, any visitor to the Board requesting a candidate's campaign finance information is given the candidate's original report. Thus, pages of irreplaceable reporting forms could be easily lost or altered. Although this did not appear to be the case with the reports we studied, there is no way that the agency could ensure the integrity of the documents. Because only paper reports are available, an in-depth study of the Maryland gubernatorial or legislative races, for example, requires a researcher to photocopy thousands of pages of reports and then key the data into a computer at her office or home - an expensive and time-consuming process. Even a limited review of reports can be slow, because members of the public must at times wait their turn to view a candidate's file; in addition, report pages are sometimes out of order due to repeated handling by the public. The impact of a paper-only system on enforcement became evident when, in 1995, several newspapers reported that Maryland election officials had failed to detect violations of the contribution limit by a dozen individuals and businesses. With some 14,000 reports filed in a four-year cycle, tracing all the contributions from a single donor by hand becomes an impossible task. Deborah Povich, Executive Director of Maryland Common Cause, the group that uncovered the violations, agrees. "Without computerizing the data," she said, "it is like looking for a needle in a haystack."¹⁵The result, according to one reporter, is that, "if donors choose to fudge a bit . . . they can be pretty sure nothing will happen to them."¹⁶ Legislation enabling candidates to file their campaign reports in electronic form would remedy many of Maryland's problems, but the state legislature has rejected such measures three years in a row. The state's failure to provide computerized campaign finance data has hampered both public access to campaign finance information and vigorous enforcement of the law. The result is that Maryland's campaign disclosure agency - like those in so many other states - has become little more than a warehouse for thousands of pieces of paper. OVERVIEW OF COMPUTERIZATION AND ELECTRONIC ACCESS As Chart A shows, fewer than half of the disclosure agencies in the country store itemized contribution or expenditure information in a database format. Of those that do computerize campaign finance data in some way, ten state agencies and four local agencies computerize both itemized contribution and expenditure information. Six state agencies and the Federal Election Commission have databases of contribution information only. Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin store some campaign finance information on computers, but not in databases that can provide answers to specific campaign finance questions. Of the sixteen state agencies that computerize campaign finance information in a database format, eleven do so for both statewide and legislative candidates, while five limit the candidates they include in their databases. New Mexico and Texas computerize only the itemized disclosure data of candidates who voluntarily file electronically. North Carolina and Ohio computerize information for statewide candidates only. (Ohio will begin adding legislative candidates to their databases during the next election cycle.) Florida's database is currently limited to information on gubernatorial candidates. However, Florida's database will soon include information on all candidates, reflecting the regulatory mandate that all candidates file electronically starting in April of 1996. The New York City Campaign Finance Board, the San Francisco Registrar of Voters, and the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission have databases that contain itemized disclosure information for all candidates that are required to file with those agencies. The FEC's database contains information for all federal candidates. The agencies that itemize contribution information universally include the name of the contributor, the amount, and the date of the contribution in their databases. A number of state and local agencies and the FEC also include the contributor's occupation and/or employer. A few agencies' databases, including those in New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and the FEC, contain the contributors' addresses as well. Agencies that do not enter addresses into their databases usually cite a lack of resources as the reason. The time in which agencies' campaign finance disclosure databases are completed ranges from days to months after disclosure reports are filed. New York City is able to upload itemized disclosure information from electronically filed reports at a rate of 1,000 transactions every ten minutes. It keys data from paper reports into its database within two weeks of filing. The Colorado Secretary of State's office takes approximately 48 hours to computerize campaign finance data. The Washington Public Disclosure Commission can usually have candidates' contributions and expenditures keyed in within 72 hours of filing, and the Michigan Secretary of State has campaign finance information on its databases within two weeks. Databases in other agencies may not be complete until months after the filing deadline, often after the election has taken place. Agencies that have computerized information often find that the most efficient way to provide the information to the public is through various electronic formats. The Federal Election Commission makes computerized, pre-formatted electronic reports available on its in-house terminals, its dial-up system, and on the Internet. The menu-driven reports are programmed to search the database, allowing users to easily retrieve information about individual contributors, PACs, party committees, and candidate committees. In addition, users can search the system for contributors by name, employer, residence, or date of contribution. In Washington, total contributions and expenditures for state House or Senate candidates, lists of contributors and their recipients, and lists of recipients and their contributors are available through the Public Disclosure Commission there. In addition to preparing easy-to-use, pre-formatted computer reports, many agencies provide access to the disclosure database itself. The Illinois State Board of Elections; the Elections Divisions of the Arizona, Idaho, and Michigan Secretaries of State; and the North Carolina State Board of Elections are among the computerized agencies that either give away or sell complete databases on diskettes for in-depth, targeted research. The most ambitious efforts to provide campaign finance information to the public electronically involve making the information available on the Internet. The Washington Public Disclosure Commission was the first to provide Internet access to its disclosure databases.¹⁷ The FEC,¹⁸ the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission,¹⁹ and the San Francisco Registrar of Voters soon followed suit. San Francisco worked in conjunction with the California Voter Foundation to put a voter guide on a World Wide Web site in October 1995.²⁰ The guide included a database of campaign contributions and expenditures for mayoral candidates. Current data from all candidates' electronically filed disclosure reports was available on-line prior to the mayoral election, giving voters additional information to use when casting their ballots. Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation notes that "on-line voter information gives the voters control over their own education process." As computer use continues to skyrocket, more and more people will turn to the Internet as a source of information. Some agencies not yet tapped into the Internet make disclosure information available through dial-up systems. The Federal Election Commission was one of the first agencies to make its disclosure data available on a dial-up system, for a fee of $20 per hour. Users in Colorado and Texas can also call to get hooked up to these agencies' systems, although the price varies considerably. Dial-up information is free in Texas, but it can cost up to $1,000 annually in Colorado. Although electronic access to computerized campaign finance information should satisfy the research needs of a majority of users, a number of agencies use their computerized information to regularly publish reports that examine significant fundraising patterns and trends. For example, the New York City Campaign Finance Board uses its database to analyze contributions and expenditures, generating six reports covering all races throughout the election cycle. The Federal Election Commission regularly issues press releases which analyze campaign finance activity. Additionally, after each two-year election cycle, the FEC publishes a report covering all financial activity for the cycle. RECOMMENDATIONS To improve public access to campaign finance information and to aid in enforcement of the law, the Center makes the following recommendations: 1. DISCLOSURE AGENCIES SHOULD DEVELOP DATABASES FOR STORING CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION. In order to alleviate the problems found in Maryland and other disclosure offices, campaign finance data should be entered into a database. While many disclosure agencies use computers to record and track filings of required reports, these functions alone are not sufficient for an agency to be considered computerized for public access or enforcement purposes. It is also inadequate for an agency to enter only summary information, such as total contributions or expenditures, into a database. At a minimum , computerization requires that itemized information for every contribution over a certain threshold be entered into a database. To facilitate complete analysis of contribution sources, the database should include the contributor's name and address, the date and amount of the contribution, and the occupation and employer of the contributor, if reported. Agencies may also wish to enter expenditures, loans, and transfers into a campaign finance database. Recommendations for developing a database are included in the section "Creating a Campaign Finance Disclosure Database," below. 2. AGENCIES SHOULD MAKE CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC IN ELECTRONIC FORMATS AND SHOULD USE THEIR DATABASES TO CREATE AND PUBLISH ANALYSES OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACTIVITIES. To satisfy the wide range of user needs, agencies should make campaign finance disclosure information available in a wide variety of formats. The Center makes the following recommendations: Agencies should provide public access to campaign finance disclosure reports immediately upon filing. An agency that takes a few days or weeks to hand-enter data from paper reports into a campaign finance disclosure database must nevertheless make copies of the reports themselves available to the public shortly after filing. Likewise, electronically filed reports should be accessible via computer shortly after receipt by the agency. Agencies should provide public access to computerized campaign finance information in the form of electronic reports, and in a database format. Pre-formatted electronic reports should be provided to enable users to get answers to the most common campaign finance questions at the touch of a few keystrokes. Agencies should also supply complete campaign finance databases to allow sophisticated users such as reporters and researchers to download and sort the information for more specialized research. Agencies should make computerized campaign finance data available on-line. To make access to campaign finance disclosure information widely available, reports and databases should be available to users on-line by way of the Internet or a reasonably priced dial-up system. Jurisdictions should also consider putting computer terminals in numerous public buildings such as libraries and courthouses, so that individuals who don't have the necessary computer equipment to receive information on-line can still have access at locations throughout the state. Agencies should provide their own analysis of campaign finance data. Public disclosure agencies should provide their own analysis of campaign finance data, because, as Robert Biersack of the FEC's Data Systems Development Division points out, "an organization that has institutional objectivity [should] perform that process." At a minimum, the agency should release summary information after each election cycle, informing the public of total receipts and expenditures for each candidate, as well as the largest individual and PAC contributors. If the agency has the resources, it should also provide interim reports that come out prior to the election. CREATING A CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE DATABASE The importance of creating an accurate, timely campaign finance disclosure database cannot be overstated. Because disclosure data can be computerized incrementally, developing the database need not be an overwhelming task. The recommendations below draw on the experience of agencies that have improved enforcement and public access by computerizing disclosure data. The following five steps should be taken in order to create a campaign finance disclosure database. 1. Select the categories of filers to include in the database, starting with committees that hold the widest public interest. 2. Enter, at a minimum, itemized contribution information. 3. Set a threshold amount for contributions to be included in the database. 4. Ensure the accuracy of the data entered into the database. 5. Enter the data immediately after receiving the disclosure reports. Each step is discussed in detail below. 1. SELECT THE CATEGORIES OF FILERS TO INCLUDE IN THE DATABASE, STARTING WITH COMMITTEES THAT HOLD THE WIDEST PUBLIC INTEREST. Ideally, a campaign finance disclosure database will include extensive financial data from every committee, including candidate committees, PACs and party committees, active in every race from school board to governor. Disclosure agencies that have to act within the constraints of their resources must usually limit the information that goes into their databases. Because the public's interest is generally focused on major races, campaign finance disclosure databases can be limited to certain committees, yet still be responsive to the public's needs. A complete look at developing a campaign finance disclosure database is available in the Follow the Money Handbook by Larry Makinson, available free of charge from the Center for Responsive Politics. Excerpts from the book that provide technical hints on setting up a basic campaign disclosure database can be found in Appendix IV. A database may contain data for statewide and legislative candidates, or statewide candidates only. A jurisdiction may also decide to include data for the highest spending PACs, or for committees active in highly controversial ballot questions. 2. ENTER, AT A MINIMUM, ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTION INFORMATION. A campaign finance disclosure database starts with itemized contributions to candidate committees. A truly complete database will also include expenditures, loans, and other financial transactions. Itemized contribution data includes the contributor's name, complete address, the contribution date, and the amount of the contribution. If the disclosure laws require contributors' occupations and employers, a disclosure database should include both, since that information is perhaps the most important to determining the economic interests of a candidate's financial backers. If the agency limits the information it keys into its database, it would be better, for public access purposes, to exclude the contributor's mailing address rather than the occupation and employer information. 3. SET A THRESHOLD AMOUNT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE. Disclosure agencies that enter the data by hand will have to set a dollar threshold for contributions to be entered. In most cases, this should be the same threshold as that required for itemization by campaign committees. If itemization thresholds for campaign committees are very low, agencies may conserve resources by setting the data-entry threshold for aggregate contributions somewhere between $100 and $200. The sum of contributions that do not meet the threshold should also be entered. 4. ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA ENTERED INTO THE DATABASE. Accuracy in transferring information from paper reports to computer databases is critical. The best way to ensure accuracy is to institute electronic filing, which allows information that is keyed in by the filing committee to be directly transferred to the agency database. If electronic filing is not yet in place, agencies can employ a method known as key verification, which involves keying all contribution information into the database twice. The two sets of data are compared by computer, and those entries that do not match-up are then verified by checking the entry on the paper report. Key verification is used by both the FEC and the New York City Campaign Finance Disclosure Board. Daniel Sedlis, First Deputy Director of the Board calls key verification "the core to setting up a good system." In random samplings of its campaign finance information, Mr. Sedlis said that they have "never found a material error in data." 5. ENTER THE DATA IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIVING THE DISCLOSURE REPORTS. Agencies that receive paper disclosure reports have to make data entry a priority in order to speed access to campaign finance disclosure information. For some agencies, this may mean hiring additional temporary staff at filing time, or turning to outside contractors to key in the data. Electronic filing largely negates concerns about the speed of data entry, since electronically filed data can be uploaded to databases within hours of receipt. THE COST OF COMPUTERIZATION SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT NEEDS DATA ENTRY NEEDS A WORD ABOUT SCANNING Adequate funding is, of course, necessary for a computerized campaign finance disclosure system. The purpose of disclosure laws is thwarted when legislatures fail to provide funds for the use of electronic technology to process and disseminate campaign finance information. Disclosure agencies cannot become more efficient if they are burdened with a paper-only reporting system. Whatever the initial investment, the cost of failing to computerize, in terms of inadequate enforcement and minimized public access, far outweighs the financial outlays required to establish a campaign finance database. The three factors that have the greatest impact on cost are software, hardware, and upkeep. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT A relatively easy and cost effective method for developing a campaign finance disclosure database is to purchase commercial database software. Off-the-shelf software is capable of performing the basic functions needed to aid enforcement and public access. The North Carolina State Board of Elections uses Professional File software, an off-the-shelf database program, to computerize contribution and expenditure information from statewide candidates. Public access is enhanced because the Board of Elections makes the database available free of charge to anyone who supplies his or her own disk. As an alternative to using off-the-shelf software, campaign finance disclosure agencies that have a systems analyst or other computer expert on staff can develop a database in-house. Designing a database should take a programmer from a few weeks to no more than a few months, depending on the complexity of the functions performed by the software. With the exception of the staff member's time, in-house software development is free to the agency. In-house development is particularly attractive where campaign finance disclosure is a function of the Secretary of State's office, since there will usually be staff with technical expertise to develop the database. Because the staff will be familiar with how to make changes to the system, a database created in-house is amenable to future growth. In-house computer programmers must be certain to work closely with enforcement division staff, in order to ensure that the program is helpful to audit campaign committees. Programmers should also contact members of the press and other frequent users to make sure that the system is responsive to the needs and interests of the public. The Division of Elections for the state of Colorado took advantage of the staff and equipment at the Office of the Secretary of State to develop a disclosure database. Before they made the database part of the state's on-line Direct Access System, programmers contacted local newspapers to get their opinions on what the database should include. The Illinois State Board of Elections also used in-house programmers to develop its comprehensive database software. If the agency does not have sufficient expertise to create its own software, outside consultants can help to develop a dynamic database that can take the agency well into the future. Besides designing the database, consultants can make suggestions regarding equipment, provide training to agency staff, and ensure that the system is able to incorporate changes in the reporting laws or the introduction of electronically filed campaign reports. The New York City Campaign Finance Board used outside consultants to assist in the creation of its campaign finance databases. EQUIPMENT NEEDS Computerizing campaign finance disclosure data need not be a complex task. At its simplest level, a campaign finance database can be created using one computer and one person for data entry. While such a scaled down version is better than no computerization at all, it might not be capable of satisfying all public access requirements, nor would it be amenable to future growth. Additional equipment may be necessary to provide on-line access to campaign finance information or to accept electronically filed reports. A campaign finance disclosure agency may have to upgrade its computers if its existing equipment does not have enough hard drive space to store campaign finance databases or enough memory to run programs that sort data in ways that meet the needs of the agency and outside users. Equipment purchased today need not be the most powerful models available, but it should not be obsolete by the next election cycle. A campaign disclosure division that operates within the office of a Secretary of State should be able to save on equipment costs by taking advantage of existing computer systems that are in place for other functions of the office. Elections divisions in Colorado, Michigan, and Florida - all housed within the Secretaries of State's offices - made use of existing equipment when computerizing campaign finance data. Agencies can also lower costs by providing new computer terminals only for those staff members requiring regular access to the database to key in data or to respond to requests for information. Those not needing frequent and immediate access to the data should consider foregoing computer upgrades if there are budgetary concerns. Agencies should also provide at least one terminal in the disclosure office for public use. DATA ENTRY NEEDS Besides the cost of establishing a campaign finance disclosure database, an agency will incur regular expenses keeping the database up to date. Colorado and Washington are among disclosure agencies that control costs by keying the data in-house. Another low cost option, used in Illinois, is to hire temporary staff to assist with data entry just after filing deadlines. The FEC uses a commercial data entry service to key campaign finance information into a database. Commercial data entry may be the most expensive option, in terms of real dollars. The payoff is that agency staff will not be tied up with time-consuming data entry work. CAN INFORMATION BE SCANNED INTO THE DATABASE? Scanning is a technique by which paper disclosure forms are electronically read into a computer. Scanning is effective for storage and retrieval of the image of a campaign finance report. However, it has some limitations when used to load information on a database. In 1991, the San Francisco Registrar of Voters attempted to scan campaign finance disclosure reports. It found that the scanners were extremely sensitive, and if the reports were not typed with precision, the information could not be read as data, and so could not be sorted. The Registrar stopped using scanning in 1993 and has since instituted an electronic filing program. Scanning technology - particularly the software - has improved since San Francisco first tried it. Despite the advances, scanning still places a burden on limited agency resources because of the time it takes to "clean up" the scanned information before it can be put into a database. COMPUTERIZATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS AT FIVE AGENCIES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASHINGTON STATE ILLINOIS MICHIGAN COLORADO An agency that computerizes disclosure information should make that information available to the public in electronic format. Below are detailed descriptions of computerized systems in five jurisdictions: the FEC, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, and Colorado. For a description of public access at agencies that accept electronic filing of campaign reports, see Chapter Three. THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION The Federal Election Commission maintains a publicly accessible database of all individual contributions of $200 or more to candidates, PACs, or party committees. PAC contributions, independent expenditures, and summary information are also computerized and are accessible on-line and on terminals at the FEC's Public Records Office. Public access to the FEC's databases is also available at a number of state disclosure agencies nationwide and by way of the FEC's Direct Access Program, an on-line subscription service that provides access to campaign finance information for a fee of $20 per hour. Recently, the FEC made some of its databases available free on the Internet. The FEC's home page contains charts and summary data for every federal candidate, as well as FEC publications and press releases. An FTP site includes 1996 contributor databases. Within 48 hours from the time a report is filed, some campaign finance information, including the date the report was received and total receipts and disbursements, is entered into the database. Disclosure reports are also available on microfilm or optical-imaging system during that time. Itemized individual contributions are usually available on the computerized database six weeks after the filing deadline. The delay is due in part to the volume of transactions the FEC enters. In October of 1994, for example, 280,000 transactions were entered in the database. The process is also slowed because the FEC's Data Systems Division encodes each report with identification numbers for committees and candidates, as well as for each transaction. Detailed computerized data, which is available as far back as the 1977-78 election cycle, is entered into the FEC's databases by an independent contractor for less than $100,000 annually, according to Robert Biersack of the FEC's Data Systems Development Division. Computerized data is sorted to answer a number of common queries, and is available on the FEC's in-house, state access, and on-line systems. Included are indices that list, alphabetically or by state, the names of individuals who gave $200 or more to a candidate. Users can also search the system for contributors by name, employer, residence (city, state, or zip code), or date of contribution. Reports listing contributions made to candidates by PACs or party committees are available as well. Besides providing formatted reports, the on-line systems allow subscribers to download unformatted data that can be loaded directly into their database or spreadsheet programs. If researchers do not want the entire database, they also have the option of selecting any of a number of subsets of the database to download, paying only for the information they need. Newspapers and organizations specializing in campaign finance research can also purchase magnetic tapes for in-depth, targeted research. THE WASHINGTON STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION The Washington Public Disclosure Commission, long a leader in public access, has made computerized campaign disclosure information available since 1987, when it developed a database in-house. Recently, the Washington PDC became the first disclosure agency to make its campaign finance information available to users free of charge over the Internet. Reports available on the Commission's World Wide Web site include: total contributions and expenditures for state House or Senate candidates, listed in descending order; lists of contributors and their recipients; and lists of recipients and their contributors. Users can also download the Commission's databases to perform targeted research. Recognizing the importance of the timeliness of the information, the PDC usually can have the data keyed in within 72 hours of receiving the candidate's disclosure report, although it can take up to a week immediately prior to an election. Two members of PDC's staff enter contribution and summary information for approximately 300 candidates. Information on over 8,500 committees is keyed in as well, to varying degrees of detail. Currently, the PDC keys into its disclosure database the name, occupation, employer, city, and state of contributors whose aggregate contributions total $100 or more. THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS In August of 1995, Illinois debuted a publicly available database of itemized contributions to all candidates for statewide and legislative offices. Illinois developed in-house software that permits users to sort the data in any of a large number of ways. For example, a user can find out such specific information as the names of all contributors who gave $500 or more to any Republican state senate candidate. Users who want to explore the database can use terminals at the Board's office, where the staff will suggest ways to use their software to get the information the user wants. Alternatively, users can buy the complete database on diskette for 3/4c for each transaction and download the information to their own programs. The entire file costs about $400. Currently, modem access to the database is not available. The Board's Executive Director, Dr. Ronald Michaelson, says that on-line access, in conjunction with electronic filing, will be the Board's next step toward further improving public access. Computerized public access was implemented in stages over a period of three years, at a total cost of between $60,000 and $70,000. The first stage involved inputting basic candidate committee information into the system and tracking committees' filings. During the second phase, the Board developed programs to maintain summary information - such as total contributions, expenditures and cash on hand - in an electronic format. The third stage culminated with the in-house development of a disclosure database and the hand-entry of itemized contributions. The Board decided not to include expenditure information in its database because of problems it had characterizing committees' expenditures. When electronic filing is implemented, the Board will consider using expenditure purpose codes in order to facilitate inclusion of expenditure information in a database.²¹ The Board's computer staff developed the entire program in-house. Outside contractors enter the information into the database, which is usually complete within four weeks of filing. Dr. Michaelson expects the use of the data to rise as the election season gets underway and as word spreads that the information is available. THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE - BUREAU OF ELECTIONS In 1994, the Bureau of Elections of the Michigan Department of State started computerizing campaign finance information by keying in summary information, contributions reported by candidates, and expenditures reported by PACs. The data is available in a database format, with the added benefit of an integrated imaging system that allows users to obtain and pull up an image of the report that contains that data. Users can access information at a terminal at the office or on a diskette, for which the agency charges $10. The agency also has a dial-up system that is currently being revised to make it more user friendly. The Bureau of Elections provides manuals and trainings to teach people how to use the system. According to Dawson Bell, a reporter with the Detroit Free Press , Bureau staff members are willing to work one-on-one with users who want to learn the system. Computerized records include itemized receipts and in-kind contributions for candidate committees and itemized expenditures made by PACs. The database also includes qualifying contributions for publicly funded gubernatorial candidates. Timothy Hanson, the Director of the Bureau, says there is "no question" that the Bureau has benefited from the automation and computerization at use throughout the Department of State's office. Data entry of campaign finance disclosure information, which is complete within two weeks of filing, is performed by staff who normally key in state motor vehicle information. To further improve public access, Michigan is moving forward with plans to implement electronic filing of campaign finance information. The Bureau of Elections expects to have a voluntary electronic filing system in place by the 1996 elections. THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE - ELECTIONS DIVISION The Elections Division of the Colorado Secretary of State's office added its campaign disclosure database to the state's Direct Access System, originally developed to provide users with corporate and Uniform Commercial Code information. It took the in-house information systems department approximately four months to develop the campaign finance data system. The Secretary of State's data operators enter contribution and expenditure data into the system within approximately 48 hours of the filing deadline. Scanned copies of committees' campaign finance reports are available for 50 cents per page from eleven in-house terminals. Because it computerizes campaign finance information, the Elections Division is able to compile a summary of contributions and expenditures made on behalf of candidates and ballot questions as well as an alphabetized list of contributors and their recipients. The summary sells for $10 and is available approximately six months after each election. The alphabetical list of contributors is available beginning the fourth working day after reports are filed and sells for $15. Access to the campaign finance databases is limited to subscribers to the Direct Access System, who pay $1,000 annually. Those users able to afford the subscription rates can select from a menu to receive summary information on candidates and committees, information on individual contributions, and average contributions received and expenditures made by candidates. Subscribers are unable to perform more targeted research because the campaign finance database cannot be downloaded from the Direct Access System to a user's computer. The Elections Division will use the database to respond to telephone requests for specific information not available on the Direct Access System. If there are enough repeated requests for a particular type of calculation, Brian Balay, a systems analyst at the office, says they may format reports to respond to those queries. Of the database, he says, "the foundation is there to do what [users] want it to do." CHART A: COMPUTERIZATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA COMPUTERIZATION

Chapter 2

COMPUTERIZATION OF
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
DISCLOSURE INFORMATION

COMMON PROBLEMS OF "PAPER ONLY" DISCLOSURE SYSTEMS

OVERVIEW OF COMPUTERIZATION AND ELECTRONIC ACCESS

RECOMMENDATIONS

CREATING A CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE DATABASE

THE COST OF COMPUTERIZATION

COMPUTERIZATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS AT FIVE AGENCIES

CHART A: COMPUTERIZATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA COMPUTERIZATION

Strong disclosure laws will always be fundamental to opening campaigns to public view and to aiding enforcement of the campaign finance laws. However, even the best laws can fall short of meeting these goals when information detailing a candidate's fundraising activities is obscured in a maze of data, in reports that are hundreds of pages long. Converting this information from paper reports to a computer database is the key to deciphering the data quickly and easily.

When campaign disclosure reports remain only in paper form, following the money that flows in and out of campaigns is a Herculean task for the press, the public, and campaign researchers. Likewise, audits of candidates' reports for compliance with the law is difficult, time-consuming, and, in some jurisdictions, impossible to complete for months or even years after the election.

A number of disclosure agencies are combating these problems by computerizing campaign finance information in publicly available databases. Computerization, as distinguished from electronic filing, does not mean that filers must supply campaign finance information in an electronic format. Rather, it refers to the format in which campaign finance information is stored and retrieved after it is received by the disclosure agency.

This chapter describes the ways in which the failure to computerize campaign finance data can frustrate the purposes of disclosure laws. It then gives an overview of computerization and electronic access to campaign information across the country. Recommendations for developing a campaign finance disclosure database and providing electronic public access are provided, as well as a discussion of costs. Finally, the chapter describes computerized campaign disclosure systems at five disclosure agencies.

COMMON PROBLEMS OF "PAPER-ONLY" DISCLOSURE SYSTEMS

During a day-long visit to the State Administrative Board of Election Laws of Maryland, the Center uncovered a sample of the problems typically found at agencies across the country that do not computerize information from campaign disclosure reports.

The first problem encountered was the lack of security. Due to a shortage of storage space, the Board does not maintain duplicates of disclosure reports for public use. Instead, any visitor to the Board requesting a candidate's campaign finance information is given the candidate's original report. Thus, pages of irreplaceable reporting forms could be easily lost or altered. Although this did not appear to be the case with the reports we studied, there is no way that the agency could ensure the integrity of the documents.

Because only paper reports are available, an in-depth study of the Maryland gubernatorial or legislative races, for example, requires a researcher to photocopy thousands of pages of reports and then key the data into a computer at her office or home - an expensive and time-consuming process. Even a limited review of reports can be slow, because members of the public must at times wait their turn to view a candidate's file; in addition, report pages are sometimes out of order due to repeated handling by the public.

The impact of a paper-only system on enforcement became evident when, in 1995, several newspapers reported that Maryland election officials had failed to detect violations of the contribution limit by a dozen individuals and businesses. With some 14,000 reports filed in a four-year cycle, tracing all the contributions from a single donor by hand becomes an impossible task. Deborah Povich, Executive Director of Maryland Common Cause, the group that uncovered the violations, agrees. "Without computerizing the data," she said, "it is like looking for a needle in a haystack."¹⁵The result, according to one reporter, is that, "if donors choose to fudge a bit . . . they can be pretty sure nothing will happen to them."¹⁶

Legislation enabling candidates to file their campaign reports in electronic form would remedy many of Maryland's problems, but the state legislature has rejected such measures three years in a row. The state's failure to provide computerized campaign finance data has hampered both public access to campaign finance information and vigorous enforcement of the law. The result is that Maryland's campaign disclosure agency - like those in so many other states - has become little more than a warehouse for thousands of pieces of paper.

OVERVIEW OF COMPUTERIZATION AND ELECTRONIC ACCESS

As Chart A shows, fewer than half of the disclosure agencies in the country store itemized contribution or expenditure information in a database format. Of those that do computerize campaign finance data in some way, ten state agencies and four local agencies computerize both itemized contribution and expenditure information. Six state agencies and the Federal Election Commission have databases of contribution information only. Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin store some campaign finance information on computers, but not in databases that can provide answers to specific campaign finance questions.

Of the sixteen state agencies that computerize campaign finance information in a database format, eleven do so for both statewide and legislative candidates, while five limit the candidates they include in their databases. New Mexico and Texas computerize only the itemized disclosure data of candidates who voluntarily file electronically. North Carolina and Ohio computerize information for statewide candidates only. (Ohio will begin adding legislative candidates to their databases during the next election cycle.) Florida's database is currently limited to information on gubernatorial candidates. However, Florida's database will soon include information on all candidates, reflecting the regulatory mandate that all candidates file electronically starting in April of 1996.

The New York City Campaign Finance Board, the San Francisco Registrar of Voters, and the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission have databases that contain itemized disclosure information for all candidates that are required to file with those agencies. The FEC's database contains information for all federal candidates.

The agencies that itemize contribution information universally include the name of the contributor, the amount, and the date of the contribution in their databases. A number of state and local agencies and the FEC also include the contributor's occupation and/or employer. A few agencies' databases, including those in New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and the FEC, contain the contributors' addresses as well. Agencies that do not enter addresses into their databases usually cite a lack of resources as the reason.

The time in which agencies' campaign finance disclosure databases are completed ranges from days to months after disclosure reports are filed. New York City is able to upload itemized disclosure information from electronically filed reports at a rate of 1,000 transactions every ten minutes. It keys data from paper reports into its database within two weeks of filing. The Colorado Secretary of State's office takes approximately 48 hours to computerize campaign finance data. The Washington Public Disclosure Commission can usually have candidates' contributions and expenditures keyed in within 72 hours of filing, and the Michigan Secretary of State has campaign finance information on its databases within two weeks. Databases in other agencies may not be complete until months after the filing deadline, often after the election has taken place.

Agencies that have computerized information often find that the most efficient way to provide the information to the public is through various electronic formats. The Federal Election Commission makes computerized, pre-formatted electronic reports available on its in-house terminals, its dial-up system, and on the Internet. The menu-driven reports are programmed to search the database, allowing users to easily retrieve information about individual contributors, PACs, party committees, and candidate committees. In addition, users can search the system for contributors by name, employer, residence, or date of contribution. In Washington, total contributions and expenditures for state House or Senate candidates, lists of contributors and their recipients, and lists of recipients and their contributors are available through the Public Disclosure Commission there.

In addition to preparing easy-to-use, pre-formatted computer reports, many agencies provide access to the disclosure database itself. The Illinois State Board of Elections; the Elections Divisions of the Arizona, Idaho, and Michigan Secretaries of State; and the North Carolina State Board of Elections are among the computerized agencies that either give away or sell complete databases on diskettes for in-depth, targeted research.

The most ambitious efforts to provide campaign finance information to the public electronically involve making the information available on the Internet. The Washington Public Disclosure Commission was the first to provide Internet access to its disclosure databases.¹⁷ The FEC,¹⁸ the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission,¹⁹ and the San Francisco Registrar of Voters soon followed suit. San Francisco worked in conjunction with the California Voter Foundation to put a voter guide on a World Wide Web site in October 1995.²⁰ The guide included a database of campaign contributions and expenditures for mayoral candidates. Current data from all candidates' electronically filed disclosure reports was available on-line prior to the mayoral election, giving voters additional information to use when casting their ballots. Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation notes that "on-line voter information gives the voters control over their own education process." As computer use continues to skyrocket, more and more people will turn to the Internet as a source of information.

Some agencies not yet tapped into the Internet make disclosure information available through dial-up systems. The Federal Election Commission was one of the first agencies to make its disclosure data available on a dial-up system, for a fee of $20 per hour. Users in Colorado and Texas can also call to get hooked up to these agencies' systems, although the price varies considerably. Dial-up information is free in Texas, but it can cost up to $1,000 annually in Colorado.

Although electronic access to computerized campaign finance information should satisfy the research needs of a majority of users, a number of agencies use their computerized information to regularly publish reports that examine significant fundraising patterns and trends. For example, the New York City Campaign Finance Board uses its database to analyze contributions and expenditures, generating six reports covering all races throughout the election cycle.

The Federal Election Commission regularly issues press releases which analyze campaign finance activity. Additionally, after each two-year election cycle, the FEC publishes a report covering all financial activity for the cycle.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To improve public access to campaign finance information and to aid in enforcement of the law, the Center makes the following recommendations:

1. DISCLOSURE AGENCIES SHOULD DEVELOP DATABASES FOR STORING CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION.

In order to alleviate the problems found in Maryland and other disclosure offices, campaign finance data should be entered into a database. While many disclosure agencies use computers to record and track filings of required reports, these functions alone are not sufficient for an agency to be considered computerized for public access or enforcement purposes. It is also inadequate for an agency to enter only summary information, such as total contributions or expenditures, into a database.

At a minimum , computerization requires that itemized information for every contribution over a certain threshold be entered into a database. To facilitate complete analysis of contribution sources, the database should include the contributor's name and address, the date and amount of the contribution, and the occupation and employer of the contributor, if reported. Agencies may also wish to enter expenditures, loans, and transfers into a campaign finance database.

Recommendations for developing a database are included in the section "Creating a Campaign Finance Disclosure Database," below.

2. AGENCIES SHOULD MAKE CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC IN ELECTRONIC FORMATS AND SHOULD USE THEIR DATABASES TO CREATE AND PUBLISH ANALYSES OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACTIVITIES.

To satisfy the wide range of user needs, agencies should make campaign finance disclosure information available in a wide variety of formats. The Center makes the following recommendations:

Agencies should provide public access to campaign finance disclosure reports immediately upon filing. An agency that takes a few days or weeks to hand-enter data from paper reports into a campaign finance disclosure database must nevertheless make copies of the reports themselves available to the public shortly after filing. Likewise, electronically filed reports should be accessible via computer shortly after receipt by the agency.

Agencies should provide public access to computerized campaign finance information in the form of electronic reports, and in a database format. Pre-formatted electronic reports should be provided to enable users to get answers to the most common campaign finance questions at the touch of a few keystrokes. Agencies should also supply complete campaign finance databases to allow sophisticated users such as reporters and researchers to download and sort the information for more specialized research.

Agencies should make computerized campaign finance data available on-line. To make access to campaign finance disclosure information widely available, reports and databases should be available to users on-line by way of the Internet or a reasonably priced dial-up system. Jurisdictions should also consider putting computer terminals in numerous public buildings such as libraries and courthouses, so that individuals who don't have the necessary computer equipment to receive information on-line can still have access at locations throughout the state.

Agencies should provide their own analysis of campaign finance data. Public disclosure agencies should provide their own analysis of campaign finance data, because, as Robert Biersack of the FEC's Data Systems Development Division points out, "an organization that has institutional objectivity [should] perform that process." At a minimum, the agency should release summary information after each election cycle, informing the public of total receipts and expenditures for each candidate, as well as the largest individual and PAC contributors. If the agency has the resources, it should also provide interim reports that come out prior to the election.

CREATING A CAMPAIGN FINANCE
DISCLOSURE DATABASE

The importance of creating an accurate, timely campaign finance disclosure database cannot be overstated. Because disclosure data can be computerized incrementally, developing the database need not be an overwhelming task. The recommendations below draw on the experience of agencies that have improved enforcement and public access by computerizing disclosure data.

The following five steps should be taken in order to create a campaign finance disclosure database.

1. Select the categories of filers to include in the database, starting with committees that hold the widest public interest.
2. Enter, at a minimum, itemized contribution information.
3. Set a threshold amount for contributions to be included in the database.
4. Ensure the accuracy of the data entered into the database.
5. Enter the data immediately after receiving the disclosure reports.

Each step is discussed in detail below.

1. SELECT THE CATEGORIES OF FILERS TO INCLUDE IN THE DATABASE, STARTING WITH COMMITTEES THAT HOLD THE WIDEST PUBLIC INTEREST.

Ideally, a campaign finance disclosure database will include extensive financial data from every committee, including candidate committees, PACs and party committees, active in every race from school board to governor. Disclosure agencies that have to act within the constraints of their resources must usually limit the information that goes into their databases. Because the public's interest is generally focused on major races, campaign finance disclosure databases can be limited to certain committees, yet still be responsive to the public's needs. A complete look at developing a campaign finance disclosure database is available in the Follow the Money Handbook by Larry Makinson, available free of charge from the Center for Responsive Politics. Excerpts from the book that provide technical hints on setting up a basic campaign disclosure database can be found in Appendix IV.

A database may contain data for statewide and legislative candidates, or statewide candidates only. A jurisdiction may also decide to include data for the highest spending PACs, or for committees active in highly controversial ballot questions.

2. ENTER, AT A MINIMUM, ITEMIZED
CONTRIBUTION INFORMATION.

A campaign finance disclosure database starts with itemized contributions to candidate committees. A truly complete database will also include expenditures, loans, and other financial transactions.

Itemized contribution data includes the contributor's name, complete address, the contribution date, and the amount of the contribution. If the disclosure laws require contributors' occupations and employers, a disclosure database should include both, since that information is perhaps the most important to determining the economic interests of a candidate's financial backers. If the agency limits the information it keys into its database, it would be better, for public access purposes, to exclude the contributor's mailing address rather than the occupation and employer information.

3. SET A THRESHOLD AMOUNT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE.

Disclosure agencies that enter the data by hand will have to set a dollar threshold for contributions to be entered. In most cases, this should be the same threshold as that required for itemization by campaign committees. If itemization thresholds for campaign committees are very low, agencies may conserve resources by setting the data-entry threshold for aggregate contributions somewhere between $100 and $200. The sum of contributions that do not meet the threshold should also be entered.

4. ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA ENTERED INTO THE DATABASE.

Accuracy in transferring information from paper reports to computer databases is critical. The best way to ensure accuracy is to institute electronic filing, which allows information that is keyed in by the filing committee to be directly transferred to the agency database. If electronic filing is not yet in place, agencies can employ a method known as key verification, which involves keying all contribution information into the database twice. The two sets of data are compared by computer, and those entries that do not match-up are then verified by checking the entry on the paper report.

Key verification is used by both the FEC and the New York City Campaign Finance Disclosure Board. Daniel Sedlis, First Deputy Director of the Board calls key verification "the core to setting up a good system." In random samplings of its campaign finance information, Mr. Sedlis said that they have "never found a material error in data."

5. ENTER THE DATA IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIVING THE DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

Agencies that receive paper disclosure reports have to make data entry a priority in order to speed access to campaign finance disclosure information. For some agencies, this may mean hiring additional temporary staff at filing time, or turning to outside contractors to key in the data. Electronic filing largely negates concerns about the speed of data entry, since electronically filed data can be uploaded to databases within hours of receipt.

THE COST OF COMPUTERIZATION

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

EQUIPMENT NEEDS

DATA ENTRY NEEDS

A WORD ABOUT SCANNING

Adequate funding is, of course, necessary for a computerized campaign finance disclosure system. The purpose of disclosure laws is thwarted when legislatures fail to provide funds for the use of electronic technology to process and disseminate campaign finance information. Disclosure agencies cannot become more efficient if they are burdened with a paper-only reporting system. Whatever the initial investment, the cost of failing to computerize, in terms of inadequate enforcement and minimized public access, far outweighs the financial outlays required to establish a campaign finance database.

The three factors that have the greatest impact on cost are software, hardware, and upkeep.

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

A relatively easy and cost effective method for developing a campaign finance disclosure database is to purchase commercial database software. Off-the-shelf software is capable of performing the basic functions needed to aid enforcement and public access. The North Carolina State Board of Elections uses Professional File software, an off-the-shelf database program, to computerize contribution and expenditure information from statewide candidates. Public access is enhanced because the Board of Elections makes the database available free of charge to anyone who supplies his or her own disk.

As an alternative to using off-the-shelf software, campaign finance disclosure agencies that have a systems analyst or other computer expert on staff can develop a database in-house. Designing a database should take a programmer from a few weeks to no more than a few months, depending on the complexity of the functions performed by the software. With the exception of the staff member's time, in-house software development is free to the agency.

In-house development is particularly attractive where campaign finance disclosure is a function of the Secretary of State's office, since there will usually be staff with technical expertise to develop the database. Because the staff will be familiar with how to make changes to the system, a database created in-house is amenable to future growth.

In-house computer programmers must be certain to work closely with enforcement division staff, in order to ensure that the program is helpful to audit campaign committees. Programmers should also contact members of the press and other frequent users to make sure that the system is responsive to the needs and interests of the public. The Division of Elections for the state of Colorado took advantage of the staff and equipment at the Office of the Secretary of State to develop a disclosure database. Before they made the database part of the state's on-line Direct Access System, programmers contacted local newspapers to get their opinions on what the database should include. The Illinois State Board of Elections also used in-house programmers to develop its comprehensive database software.

If the agency does not have sufficient expertise to create its own software, outside consultants can help to develop a dynamic database that can take the agency well into the future. Besides designing the database, consultants can make suggestions regarding equipment, provide training to agency staff, and ensure that the system is able to incorporate changes in the reporting laws or the introduction of electronically filed campaign reports. The New York City Campaign Finance Board used outside consultants to assist in the creation of its campaign finance databases.

EQUIPMENT NEEDS

Computerizing campaign finance disclosure data need not be a complex task. At its simplest level, a campaign finance database can be created using one computer and one person for data entry. While such a scaled down version is better than no computerization at all, it might not be capable of satisfying all public access requirements, nor would it be amenable to future growth. Additional equipment may be necessary to provide on-line access to campaign finance information or to accept electronically filed reports.

A campaign finance disclosure agency may have to upgrade its computers if its existing equipment does not have enough hard drive space to store campaign finance databases or enough memory to run programs that sort data in ways that meet the needs of the agency and outside users. Equipment purchased today need not be the most powerful models available, but it should not be obsolete by the next election cycle.

A campaign disclosure division that operates within the office of a Secretary of State should be able to save on equipment costs by taking advantage of existing computer systems that are in place for other functions of the office. Elections divisions in Colorado, Michigan, and Florida - all housed within the Secretaries of State's offices - made use of existing equipment when computerizing campaign finance data. Agencies can also lower costs by providing new computer terminals only for those staff members requiring regular access to the database to key in data or to respond to requests for information. Those not needing frequent and immediate access to the data should consider foregoing computer upgrades if there are budgetary concerns. Agencies should also provide at least one terminal in the disclosure office for public use.

DATA ENTRY NEEDS

Besides the cost of establishing a campaign finance disclosure database, an agency will incur regular expenses keeping the database up to date. Colorado and Washington are among disclosure agencies that control costs by keying the data in-house. Another low cost option, used in Illinois, is to hire temporary staff to assist with data entry just after filing deadlines. The FEC uses a commercial data entry service to key campaign finance information into a database. Commercial data entry may be the most expensive option, in terms of real dollars. The payoff is that agency staff will not be tied up with time-consuming data entry work.

CAN INFORMATION BE SCANNED INTO THE DATABASE?

Scanning is a technique by which paper disclosure forms are electronically read into a computer. Scanning is effective for storage and retrieval of the image of a campaign finance report. However, it has some limitations when used to load information on a database. In 1991, the San Francisco Registrar of Voters attempted to scan campaign finance disclosure reports. It found that the scanners were extremely sensitive, and if the reports were not typed with precision, the information could not be read as data, and so could not be sorted. The Registrar stopped using scanning in 1993 and has since instituted an electronic filing program.

Scanning technology - particularly the software - has improved since San Francisco first tried it. Despite the advances, scanning still places a burden on limited agency resources because of the time it takes to "clean up" the scanned information before it can be put into a database.

COMPUTERIZATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS AT FIVE AGENCIES

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

WASHINGTON STATE

ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN

COLORADO

An agency that computerizes disclosure information should make that information available to the public in electronic format. Below are detailed descriptions of computerized systems in five jurisdictions: the FEC, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, and Colorado. For a description of public access at agencies that accept electronic filing of campaign reports, see Chapter Three.

THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

The Federal Election Commission maintains a publicly accessible database of all individual contributions of $200 or more to candidates, PACs, or party committees. PAC contributions, independent expenditures, and summary information are also computerized and are accessible on-line and on terminals at the FEC's Public Records Office. Public access to the FEC's databases is also available at a number of state disclosure agencies nationwide and by way of the FEC's Direct Access Program, an on-line subscription service that provides access to campaign finance information for a fee of $20 per hour. Recently, the FEC made some of its databases available free on the Internet. The FEC's home page contains charts and summary data for every federal candidate, as well as FEC publications and press releases. An FTP site includes 1996 contributor databases.

Within 48 hours from the time a report is filed, some campaign finance information, including the date the report was received and total receipts and disbursements, is entered into the database. Disclosure reports are also available on microfilm or optical-imaging system during that time. Itemized individual contributions are usually available on the computerized database six weeks after the filing deadline. The delay is due in part to the volume of transactions the FEC enters. In October of 1994, for example, 280,000 transactions were entered in the database. The process is also slowed because the FEC's Data Systems Division encodes each report with identification numbers for committees and candidates, as well as for each transaction. Detailed computerized data, which is available as far back as the 1977-78 election cycle, is entered into the FEC's databases by an independent contractor for less than $100,000 annually, according to Robert Biersack of the FEC's Data Systems Development Division.

Computerized data is sorted to answer a number of common queries, and is available on the FEC's in-house, state access, and on-line systems. Included are indices that list, alphabetically or by state, the names of individuals who gave $200 or more to a candidate. Users can also search the system for contributors by name, employer, residence (city, state, or zip code), or date of contribution. Reports listing contributions made to candidates by PACs or party committees are available as well. Besides providing formatted reports, the on-line systems allow subscribers to download unformatted data that can be loaded directly into their database or spreadsheet programs. If researchers do not want the entire database, they also have the option of selecting any of a number of subsets of the database to download, paying only for the information they need. Newspapers and organizations specializing in campaign finance research can also purchase magnetic tapes for in-depth, targeted research.

THE WASHINGTON STATE PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE COMMISSION

The Washington Public Disclosure Commission, long a leader in public access, has made computerized campaign disclosure information available since 1987, when it developed a database in-house. Recently, the Washington PDC became the first disclosure agency to make its campaign finance information available to users free of charge over the Internet. Reports available on the Commission's World Wide Web site include: total contributions and expenditures for state House or Senate candidates, listed in descending order; lists of contributors and their recipients; and lists of recipients and their contributors. Users can also download the Commission's databases to perform targeted research.

Recognizing the importance of the timeliness of the information, the PDC usually can have the data keyed in within 72 hours of receiving the candidate's disclosure report, although it can take up to a week immediately prior to an election. Two members of PDC's staff enter contribution and summary information for approximately 300 candidates. Information on over 8,500 committees is keyed in as well, to varying degrees of detail. Currently, the PDC keys into its disclosure database the name, occupation, employer, city, and state of contributors whose aggregate contributions total $100 or more.

THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

In August of 1995, Illinois debuted a publicly available database of itemized contributions to all candidates for statewide and legislative offices. Illinois developed in-house software that permits users to sort the data in any of a large number of ways. For example, a user can find out such specific information as the names of all contributors who gave $500 or more to any Republican state senate candidate. Users who want to explore the database can use terminals at the Board's office, where the staff will suggest ways to use their software to get the information the user wants. Alternatively, users can buy the complete database on diskette for 3/4c for each transaction and download the information to their own programs. The entire file costs about $400.

Currently, modem access to the database is not available. The Board's Executive Director, Dr. Ronald Michaelson, says that on-line access, in conjunction with electronic filing, will be the Board's next step toward further improving public access.

Computerized public access was implemented in stages over a period of three years, at a total cost of between $60,000 and $70,000. The first stage involved inputting basic candidate committee information into the system and tracking committees' filings. During the second phase, the Board developed programs to maintain summary information - such as total contributions, expenditures and cash on hand - in an electronic format. The third stage culminated with the in-house development of a disclosure database and the hand-entry of itemized contributions. The Board decided not to include expenditure information in its database because of problems it had characterizing committees' expenditures. When electronic filing is implemented, the Board will consider using expenditure purpose codes in order to facilitate inclusion of expenditure information in a database.²¹

The Board's computer staff developed the entire program in-house. Outside contractors enter the information into the database, which is usually complete within four weeks of filing.

Dr. Michaelson expects the use of the data to rise as the election season gets underway and as word spreads that the information is available.

THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE -
BUREAU OF ELECTIONS

In 1994, the Bureau of Elections of the Michigan Department of State started computerizing campaign finance information by keying in summary information, contributions reported by candidates, and expenditures reported by PACs. The data is available in a database format, with the added benefit of an integrated imaging system that allows users to obtain and pull up an image of the report that contains that data. Users can access information at a terminal at the office or on a diskette, for which the agency charges $10. The agency also has a dial-up system that is currently being revised to make it more user friendly. The Bureau of Elections provides manuals and trainings to teach people how to use the system. According to Dawson Bell, a reporter with the Detroit Free Press , Bureau staff members are willing to work one-on-one with users who want to learn the system.

Computerized records include itemized receipts and in-kind contributions for candidate committees and itemized expenditures made by PACs. The database also includes qualifying contributions for publicly funded gubernatorial candidates.

Timothy Hanson, the Director of the Bureau, says there is "no question" that the Bureau has benefited from the automation and computerization at use throughout the Department of State's office. Data entry of campaign finance disclosure information, which is complete within two weeks of filing, is performed by staff who normally key in state motor vehicle information.

To further improve public access, Michigan is moving forward with plans to implement electronic filing of campaign finance information. The Bureau of Elections expects to have a voluntary electronic filing system in place by the 1996 elections.

THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE - ELECTIONS DIVISION

The Elections Division of the Colorado Secretary of State's office added its campaign disclosure database to the state's Direct Access System, originally developed to provide users with corporate and Uniform Commercial Code information. It took the in-house information systems department approximately four months to develop the campaign finance data system. The Secretary of State's data operators enter contribution and expenditure data into the system within approximately 48 hours of the filing deadline.

Scanned copies of committees' campaign finance reports are available for 50 cents per page from eleven in-house terminals. Because it computerizes campaign finance information, the Elections Division is able to compile a summary of contributions and expenditures made on behalf of candidates and ballot questions as well as an alphabetized list of contributors and their recipients. The summary sells for $10 and is available approximately six months after each election. The alphabetical list of contributors is available beginning the fourth working day after reports are filed and sells for $15.

Access to the campaign finance databases is limited to subscribers to the Direct Access System, who pay $1,000 annually. Those users able to afford the subscription rates can select from a menu to receive summary information on candidates and committees, information on individual contributions, and average contributions received and expenditures made by candidates. Subscribers are unable to perform more targeted research because the campaign finance database cannot be downloaded from the Direct Access System to a user's computer. The Elections Division will use the database to respond to telephone requests for specific information not available on the Direct Access System. If there are enough repeated requests for a particular type of calculation, Brian Balay, a systems analyst at the office, says they may format reports to respond to those queries. Of the database, he says, "the foundation is there to do what [users] want it to do."

CHART A: COMPUTERIZATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA COMPUTERIZATION