Plugging in the Public: Introduction and Overview

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
	HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS METHODOLOGY HOW THE REPORT IS ORGANIZED Writing in 1932, political scientist Louise Overacker described the scene in the House Clerk's office when someone would ask to see copies of federal campaign finance reports from past election years: . . . one is taken into a tiny washroom, where a series of dusty paper-covered bundles repose upon an upper shelf. By climbing upon a chair and digging about among the bundles one usually finds what one wants . . . but there is no file and no system. ¹ Today, campaign disclosure reports are not likely to be stored in government restrooms, and federal and state laws have formalized campaign reporting systems throughout the country. Nevertheless, for the interested voter or average reporter, trying to get a complete picture of who pays for political campaigns today still requires a good deal of "digging about among the bundles." A major reason for this is that most disclosure agencies remain mired in reams of paper, far from the technical advances of the information age. Another, more stubborn obstacle is the age-old aversion of elected officials to exposing the details of their campaign fundraising and spending habits to the public, particularly to their political opponents. While nearly all pay lip service to public disclosure as the cornerstone of campaign reform, many lawmakers hesitate to provide the necessary resources or statutory tools to maximize public access to this information. Although the last two decades have witnessed enormous growth in the amount of money raised and spent, and in the number of active political groups filing reports, a survey of state expenditures devoted to the administration of campaign laws - including disclosure - shows that agency resources have lagged far behind the increasing demands. ² As an example, efforts in several states to computerize reporting have been hampered by political resistance. For four consecutive years the New York State Board of Elections' request for funds to computerize its records was deleted in the governor's budget, and efforts to restore the money stalled in the legislature. ³ The agency's director complained, "We get questions on how much gubernatorial candidates spent, where it came from; we aren't able to supply that data. We have to give 10,000 pieces of paper." ⁴ Campaign reporting laws - which form the framework of any disclosure system - have been periodically strengthened in some jurisdictions but still vary widely in their coverage, level of detail, and frequency of reporting. For instance, while the federal government and a handful of states require candidates to disclose their activities at least quarterly in election years, in many states the first public report is not due until less than two weeks before election day. And in one state voters cannot get this information until after the election. The country's first campaign disclosure laws were adopted by several states in the 1890s, when corporations and wealthy businessmen used hefty campaign contributions to buy government decisions. Congress followed the states only in 1910, after long opposing such legislation. Today, 100 years after the first disclosure laws were adopted, the public's right to know who is paying for political campaigns is well-established in principle - but not always in practice. In Plugging in the Public: A Model for Campaign Finance Disclosure, the Center for Responsive Politics presents a disclosure model that includes recommendations for strengthening reporting laws and for enhancing public access to campaign finance data, particularly through the use of computer technology. The recommendations are based on the experience of campaign finance researchers, members of the press, and disclosure agencies at all levels of government. The model is offered to aid in evaluating the effectiveness of existing disclosure systems and to guide public officials, disclosure agencies, and activists on ways to improve public access to campaign finance information. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS The model offered in this report is designed to improve several aspects of campaign disclosure. First, it would provide more precise reporting about who is paying for campaigns and would enhance public access to the information contained in disclosure reports. Second, it would aid in enforcement of the campaign laws, improving and speeding up the process by which reports are audited. Third, it would ensure greater efficiency in disclosure agency operations. Finally, it would provide the means for candidates, campaign treasurers, and other filers to produce more timely and accurate reports. The recommendations are applicable to federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Highlights of the model's recommendations are as follows: Candidates, political parties, and other groups that file campaign finance reports should be required to identify the occupation and employer of large contributors. Individuals and groups should be required to report their independent expenditures. Independent expenditures made after the final reporting date before an election should be reported to the disclosure agency and to the affected candidate(s) within 24 hours. During an election year, disclosure reports should be filed quarterly and again ten days prior to the election. Monthly reports should be mandated for candidates or political parties that receive public funds. Large contributions received after the final pre-election report but before election day should be reported within 24 hours. Campaign finance data should be stored electronically, in a database that can be easily searched and sorted by voters, reporters, researchers, and campaign enforcement agencies. Candidates, PACs, and political party committees which raise or spend above a specific threshold amount should be required to file their reports electronically with the agency, either by disk or modem. Disclosure agencies should make campaign finance information accessible to the public in electronic format. METHODOLOGY In February 1995 the Center for Responsive Politics undertook an examination of campaign finance disclosure systems throughout the country, with the goal of developing a disclosure model that could be used to maximize public access to campaign finance information at all levels of government. The starting point in this project was a survey of the reporting laws of the federal government, the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. In addition, we consulted the campaign finance disclosure provisions of "A Model Law for Campaign Finance, Ethics, and Lobbying Regulation," developed by the Council On Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL). The Center mailed a survey to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five local jurisdictions, inquiring about agency policies and procedures for making campaign finance data available to the public. Of the 56 agencies surveyed, 55 responded, providing a comprehensive picture of public disclosure operations across the country. The FEC Watch staff conducted telephone interviews with disclosure agency officials, campaign finance researchers, campaign reform activists, and political reporters across the country. Those interviewed were asked to evaluate public access in their respective jurisdictions and comment on the elements that had the greatest impact on disclosure. Almost universally, those interviewed believed that computerization of campaign finance information was key to improving public access. In addition to the telephone interviews, the FEC Watch staff visited the Federal Election Commission and 10 disclosure agencies across the country to interview staff and examine their disclosure operations first-hand. We chose a broad spectrum of agencies, ranging from those whose disclosure operations consisted of several filing cabinets and a table to those with fully operational electronic filing systems. We also interviewed commercial developers of campaign reporting software. On September 18, 1995, the Center held a roundtable discussion attended by federal, state, and local campaign finance disclosure officials. (See Appendix VI for the list of participants.) We asked participants to react to several specific recommendations for improving public access to campaign finance information - changes that would most directly affect the operations of disclosure agencies. We were particularly interested in the practical implications of these recommendations. For example, how long would it take to implement the recommended changes? How much would it cost to institute the recommendations? What about the potential impact on agency staff and other resources? Following the roundtable, research was conducted to update our information on the status and successful use of computer technology in disclosure agencies around the country. HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED The body of this report has been divided into three chapters. Chapter One contains an overview of current disclosure laws and recommendations for a model reporting statute. The COGEL model law is presented as Appendix I, and additional language developed by the Center is included as Appendix II. Chapter Two contains recommendations for creating a campaign finance disclosure database and for providing public access to campaign finance information in electronic as well as paper formats. It describes the current state of computerization and public access at state and federal agencies, and more particularly details the systems in place at five agencies. Chapter Three centers on electronic filing as the most efficient method to computerize campaign disclosure records and provides a guide to implementation of an electronic filing system. The chapter closes with a description of the electronic filing systems in place in three jurisdictions and examines the ambitious system currently being developed in the state of Iowa.

INTRODUCTION
AND
OVERVIEW

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS

METHODOLOGY

HOW THE REPORT IS ORGANIZED

Writing in 1932, political scientist Louise Overacker described the scene in the House Clerk's office when someone would ask to see copies of federal campaign finance reports from past election years:

. . . one is taken into a tiny washroom, where a series of dusty paper-covered bundles repose upon an upper shelf. By climbing upon a chair and digging about among the bundles one usually finds what one wants . . . but there is no file and no system. ¹

Today, campaign disclosure reports are not likely to be stored in government restrooms, and federal and state laws have formalized campaign reporting systems throughout the country. Nevertheless, for the interested voter or average reporter, trying to get a complete picture of who pays for political campaigns today still requires a good deal of "digging about among the bundles."

A major reason for this is that most disclosure agencies remain mired in reams of paper, far from the technical advances of the information age. Another, more stubborn obstacle is the age-old aversion of elected officials to exposing the details of their campaign fundraising and spending habits to the public, particularly to their political opponents.

While nearly all pay lip service to public disclosure as the cornerstone of campaign reform, many lawmakers hesitate to provide the necessary resources or statutory tools to maximize public access to this information. Although the last two decades have witnessed enormous growth in the amount of money raised and spent, and in the number of active political groups filing reports, a survey of state expenditures devoted to the administration of campaign laws - including disclosure - shows that agency resources have lagged far behind the increasing demands. ²

As an example, efforts in several states to computerize reporting have been hampered by political resistance. For four consecutive years the New York State Board of Elections' request for funds to computerize its records was deleted in the governor's budget, and efforts to restore the money stalled in the legislature. ³ The agency's director complained, "We get questions on how much gubernatorial candidates spent, where it came from; we aren't able to supply that data. We have to give 10,000 pieces of paper." ⁴

Campaign reporting laws - which form the framework of any disclosure system - have been periodically strengthened in some jurisdictions but still vary widely in their coverage, level of detail, and frequency of reporting. For instance, while the federal government and a handful of states require candidates to disclose their activities at least quarterly in election years, in many states the first public report is not due until less than two weeks before election day. And in one state voters cannot get this information until after the election.

The country's first campaign disclosure laws were adopted by several states in the 1890s, when corporations and wealthy businessmen used hefty campaign contributions to buy government decisions. Congress followed the states only in 1910, after long opposing such legislation. Today, 100 years after the first disclosure laws were adopted, the public's right to know who is paying for political campaigns is well-established in principle - but not always in practice.

In Plugging in the Public: A Model for Campaign Finance Disclosure, the Center for Responsive Politics presents a disclosure model that includes recommendations for strengthening reporting laws and for enhancing public access to campaign finance data, particularly through the use of computer technology. The recommendations are based on the experience of campaign finance researchers, members of the press, and disclosure agencies at all levels of government. The model is offered to aid in evaluating the effectiveness of existing disclosure systems and to guide public officials, disclosure agencies, and activists on ways to improve public access to campaign finance information.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS

The model offered in this report is designed to improve several aspects of campaign disclosure. First, it would provide more precise reporting about who is paying for campaigns and would enhance public access to the information contained in disclosure reports. Second, it would aid in enforcement of the campaign laws, improving and speeding up the process by which reports are audited. Third, it would ensure greater efficiency in disclosure agency operations. Finally, it would provide the means for candidates, campaign treasurers, and other filers to produce more timely and accurate reports. The recommendations are applicable to federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Highlights of the model's recommendations are as follows:

Candidates, political parties, and other groups that file campaign finance reports should be required to identify the occupation and employer of large contributors.

Individuals and groups should be required to report their independent expenditures. Independent expenditures made after the final reporting date before an election should be reported to the disclosure agency and to the affected candidate(s) within 24 hours.

During an election year, disclosure reports should be filed quarterly and again ten days prior to the election. Monthly reports should be mandated for candidates or political parties that receive public funds.

Large contributions received after the final pre-election report but before election day should be reported within 24 hours.

Campaign finance data should be stored electronically, in a database that can be easily searched and sorted by voters, reporters, researchers, and campaign enforcement agencies.

Candidates, PACs, and political party committees which raise or spend above a specific threshold amount should be required to file their reports electronically with the agency, either by disk or modem.

Disclosure agencies should make campaign finance information accessible to the public in electronic format.

METHODOLOGY

In February 1995 the Center for Responsive Politics undertook an examination of campaign finance disclosure systems throughout the country, with the goal of developing a disclosure model that could be used to maximize public access to campaign finance information at all levels of government.

The starting point in this project was a survey of the reporting laws of the federal government, the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. In addition, we consulted the campaign finance disclosure provisions of "A Model Law for Campaign Finance, Ethics, and Lobbying Regulation," developed by the Council On Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL).

The Center mailed a survey to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five local jurisdictions, inquiring about agency policies and procedures for making campaign finance data available to the public. Of the 56 agencies surveyed, 55 responded, providing a comprehensive picture of public disclosure operations across the country.

The FEC Watch staff conducted telephone interviews with disclosure agency officials, campaign finance researchers, campaign reform activists, and political reporters across the country. Those interviewed were asked to evaluate public access in their respective jurisdictions and comment on the elements that had the greatest impact on disclosure. Almost universally, those interviewed believed that computerization of campaign finance information was key to improving public access.

In addition to the telephone interviews, the FEC Watch staff visited the Federal Election Commission and 10 disclosure agencies across the country to interview staff and examine their disclosure operations first-hand. We chose a broad spectrum of agencies, ranging from those whose disclosure operations consisted of several filing cabinets and a table to those with fully operational electronic filing systems. We also interviewed commercial developers of campaign reporting software.

On September 18, 1995, the Center held a roundtable discussion attended by federal, state, and local campaign finance disclosure officials. (See Appendix VI for the list of participants.) We asked participants to react to several specific recommendations for improving public access to campaign finance information - changes that would most directly affect the operations of disclosure agencies. We were particularly interested in the practical implications of these recommendations. For example, how long would it take to implement the recommended changes? How much would it cost to institute the recommendations? What about the potential impact on agency staff and other resources?

Following the roundtable, research was conducted to update our information on the status and successful use of computer technology in disclosure agencies around the country.

HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED

The body of this report has been divided into three chapters. Chapter One contains an overview of current disclosure laws and recommendations for a model reporting statute. The COGEL model law is presented as Appendix I, and additional language developed by the Center is included as Appendix II.

Chapter Two contains recommendations for creating a campaign finance disclosure database and for providing public access to campaign finance information in electronic as well as paper formats. It describes the current state of computerization and public access at state and federal agencies, and more particularly details the systems in place at five agencies.

Chapter Three centers on electronic filing as the most efficient method to computerize campaign disclosure records and provides a guide to implementation of an electronic filing system. The chapter closes with a description of the electronic filing systems in place in three jurisdictions and examines the ambitious system currently being developed in the state of Iowa.