The 1999 Digital Sunlight Awards
and Progress Report
A nationwide survey and forecast for
Internet disclosure of money in politics
Authored by Kim Alexander and Stephen Levine
Published December 7, 1999 by the California Voter Foundation
Report Outline
|
I. |
Introduction |
|
II. |
Overview: National Forecast - Partly Sunny |
|
III. |
Background: From Filing Cabinets to Digital Disclosure |
|
IV. |
State-of-the-art public disclosure |
|
V. |
About the Digital Sunlight Awards and the California Voter Foundation |
|
VI. |
Digital Sunlight Awards Criteria |
|
VII. |
About the Digital Sunlight Award Winners |
|
VIII. |
Electronic Filing * Voluntary vs. mandatory electronic filing * The need for funding * Software and standard filing formats |
|
IX. |
Online Disclosure * Itemized contributions * Public disclosure and privacy rights * Accessing the data * Availability of historic records * No access fees * Scanning and data-entry * Voluntary disclosure on campaign web sites * Locating online disclosure information * Site design and performance |
|
X. |
Concluding Thoughts * Advice for digital sunlight advocates * Suggestions for disclosure agency staff * What it will take to move further into the digital sunlight |
I. Introduction
In American democracy, money talks. Money often dictates who wins, who loses,
which laws are enacted, and which bills fail. If money equals speech, then the public
has the right to know who's doing the talking, and how much.
Public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures helps improve accountability
and trust in government. At a time when faith in the political process has eroded,
better disclosure is a reform that is desperately needed. Thanks to the Internet,
the public can finally have the kind of meaningful access needed to understand how
money is affecting politics. The money that fuels this country's political activities
can now be exposed to a much wider audience, helping to make politics more transparent
to the people and helping voters make more informed decisions at election time.
This study identifies which states are moving their disclosure records onto the Internet
and into the digital sunlight, and which states are not. Each state has been evaluated,
ranked and rated based on progress made toward electronic filing of political disclosure
records, and current availability of political disclosure data on official state
web sites. Top-rated states earn the prestigious Digital Sunlight Award. Additional
ratings include Mostly Sunny, Partly Sunny, Partly Cloudy, Mostly Cloudy, and Dark
Skies.
Evaluations were conducted by a team of experienced researchers and panel of expert
judges. Through the Digital Sunlight Awards, the California Voter Foundation is helping
shine a brighter light on one of the most important and promising areas of political
reform.
II. Overview: National Forecast - Partly Sunny
Today 32 states are moving forward on electronic filing. Of these, 17 states have
enacted mandatory electronic filing laws, and another 15 states are currently offering
or developing voluntary electronic filing programs. Thirty-five state disclosure
agency web sites provide some kind of campaign finance disclosure information. Thirty-one
states have appropriated funding for disclosure agencies specifically to fund digital
disclosure efforts.
Illinois, New York, Michigan, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Virginia are at
the forefront of the digital disclosure movement underway in the U.S. and for their
efforts the California Voter Foundation pleased to honor these seven states with
the 1999 Digital Sunlight Award.
Seven states rated in the "mostly sunny" category, including Texas, Arizona,
Washington, Florida, New Jersey, Indiana and Utah. Twelve states rated as "partly
sunny": Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Colorado. On
the darker side of the scale, seven states rated "partly cloudy": Maryland,
Idaho, Alabama, Minnesota, Georgia, Ohio and Nebraska. Nine states were found to
be "mostly cloudy": Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas,
New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, and Maine. Finally, there are the eight "Dark
Skies" states, with little or no Internet disclosure activity to date: Montana,
Vermont, Delaware, West Virginia, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Tennessee and South Carolina.
States scored an average of 54 points, placing the country as a whole in the "Partly
Sunny" category. Summaries of each states' activities
are available, as is a map of the country showing a color-coded
guide for each state's rating.
III. Background: From Filing Cabinets to Digital Disclosure
Twenty-five years ago, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, new laws were enacted
across the country requiring public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.
It was hoped that public disclosure would deter politicians from being unduly influenced
by contributors. But any reporter or citizen who has ever tried to "follow the
money" knows how difficult it can be to search through paper records. The extraordinary
amount of money being raised and spent in today's political campaigns has rendered
paper disclosure virtually meaningless.
The rising popularity of the Internet has increased the public's appetite and demand
for better access to government records, including campaign finance data. The Internet
provides an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the original intent of our country's
disclosure laws by offering the public convenient, 24-hour access to campaign finance
data.
Before campaign finance records can be published online, they must be computerized.
The most accurate, cost-effective and timely way to computerize campaign finance
data is to require electronic filing so that records are disclosed in a digital format
in the first place. Since the early 1990's, local, state and federal disclosure agencies
have been experimenting with electronic filing and Internet disclosure in an effort
to improve public access to disclosure data. The term "electronic filing"
or "e-filing" generally refers to any kind of filing system that accepts
reports in a digital format -- either on diskette, or over the Internet, typically
via email or a web form.
IV. State-of-the-art public disclosure
What is the ideal? Instant online disclosure. The best situation is one where
the curious citizen can log on to the Internet and easily locate official campaign
finance disclosure information. The data is comprehensive, and can be accessed in
a number of ways. Itemized contributions and expenditures can be searched by various
fields, such as zip code, name, date of contribution and contributor's occupation
or employer. The records are accurate and easy to understand, and the data is served
up quickly. For those who want to browse the records, the site provides a hyperlinked
inventory of available files. For more advanced users, the site offers the ability
to download records and import the data into a computer program such as Excel for
offline sorting and searching. The records are available on the Internet at the moment
they are filed with the disclosure agency.
Because the information is on the Internet, it's available 24 hours a day, unlike
the paper records that are only available from a government office that may be located
far away from the citizen and available only during business hours on weekdays. Because
it is immediately disclosed, citizens can find out about last-minute campaign contributions
and expenditures and use that information to make more informed voting decisions.
This scenario is not a fantasy. This is the state of the art of public disclosure
in the United States. What enables instant online disclosure is electronic filing.
When disclosure records are filed in a digital format, rather than paper, they can
be placed immediately on the Internet. Already 32 states have electronic filing programs
in place or in progress. Of these, 17 require candidates to file electronically,
and 15 states offer voluntary electronic filing.
While instant online disclosure is a simple idea, bringing it about can be very challenging.
For a state to offer electronic filing and online access to campaign finance data
requires software, hardware, technical expertise, and a fast and reliable Internet
connection.
V. About the Digital Sunlight Awards and
the California Voter Foundation
While many states are moving toward electronic filing and Internet disclosure,
some are moving faster than others, and several state legislatures and elections
agencies have yet to make any significant progress toward digital sunlight. The California
Voter Foundation has been promoting the concept of digital sunlight since 1995, when
the organization produced the world's first real-time Internet campaign
finance database for San Francisco's municipal election. Since then, CVF has
been tracking digital disclosure activity in the United States and publishing periodic
updates on the status of digital sunlight efforts.
The California Voter Foundation (CVF) developed the Digital Sunlight Awards program
to further advance Internet disclosure of campaign data nationwide and help the public
determine how their state's disclosure efforts compare with others. This awards program
has been funded with a grant from the Joyce Foundation. CVF is a non-profit, nonpartisan
501(c)3 organization dedicated to advancing new technologies to improve democracy.
More information about CVF is available online at http://www.calvoter.org.
The ratings research was conducted between August and November 1999, and involved
legislative research, multiple web site visits over time, and interviews with agency
staff, legislative staff and activists. Online disclosure is a moving target, and
some states made significant improvements during the time the study was conducted.
This report offers a snapshot of the state of the art in late 1999. The report highlights
successes as well as setbacks so that states can learn from each other, improve their
performance, and rapidly advance toward truly meaningful political disclosure.
This study is the first-ever nationwide ranking of the 50 states' movement toward
Internet disclosure of money in politics, and provides a benchmark from which future
progress can be measured. CVF plans to repeat this awards and ratings program in
two years, at which time the criteria may change as other factors and needs are considered
as the state of technology advances.
VI. Digital Sunlight Awards Criteria
The Digital Sunlight Awards criteria was developed based on the scenario featured
above. Each state was evaluated and scored for their efforts to advance instant online
disclosure. A 100 point rating system was developed, with up to 50 points for electronic
filing activities, and up to 50 points for the current availability of campaign finance
data on the state's web site. A "bonus" section provided up to 15 extra
points for digital disclosure activities involving other types of filers, such as
lobbyists and PACs. All ratings were evaluated by a panel of judges who are well-versed
in the field of campaign finance disclosure.
The criteria and ratings strongly favor electronic filing as the best solution for
providing the most timely, detailed and accurate disclosure data on the Web. States
were rated specifically for their efforts to establish electronic filing and online
disclosure for statewide and legislative candidates. While some state disclosure
agency are responsible for local disclosure info, local races and activities were
generally not covered in this report. A more detailed explanation
of the criteria used and points awarded is also available, as is a chart
showing the point spread for each rating.
When judging a state's electronic filing activities, the following criteria were
considered:
* Is an electronic filing program in operation?
* Is electronic filing mandatory?
* How much progress has the state made in developing its program?
* Has any legislation been introduced or passed to implement electronic filing?
* Has adequate funding for a program been provided?
* Is free software available?
* Is a standard filing format available, or in the works?
When judging a state's online disclosure efforts, the following criteria were considered:
* Does the state have any disclosure information on the the state's web site?
* Does it cover all candidates, or just a few?
* How quickly is the information published online after it is received?
* How much historical information is available?
* Does it provide itemized contributions, or just summary data?
* How much detail for itemized contributions is available?
* Is it possible to search, browse or download itemized contributions?
* How easy is it to find the disclosure agency's web site?
* How easy is it to find campaign finance data on the site?
* How well is the site designed and how user-friendly is it?
The ratings reflect the combined efforts of the legislative and executive branches
of state government and the agency responsible for public disclosure to move disclosure
records onto the Internet, and do not take nonprofit activities into consideration.
While many nonprofit organizations across the country are doing an outstanding job
of offering Internet disclosure resources, it is ultimately the responsibility of
the government to provide public access to this data. Consequently, the state disclosure
efforts by nonprofit organizations are not reflected in the state's evaluation.
The efforts of nonprofit organizations should not be overlooked, and have clearly
had a positive impact on the overall movement toward online disclosure. Many nonprofit
advocacy groups are at the forefront of state efforts to enact electronic filing
laws. There is a wealth of information online from nonprofit organizations, who have
been doing an effective job filling in the disclosure gap in many states.
Nonprofit state disclosure web sites are linked to from the Disclosure
Links Chart.
VII. About the Digital Sunlight Award Winners
There appears to be an emerging formula for digital disclosure success. The states
that won the 1999 Digital Sunlight Award have common elements in their programs.
Successful programs usually result from the enactment of a state law directing the
state's disclosure agency to establish a program and providing the funding needed
to do so. Such laws usually phase in electronic filing and provide a reasonable implementation
schedule which can operate like a strategic plan to help ensure the new program stays
on track. Most states began with a voluntary electronic filing program, which helps
prepare for implementation of mandatory electronic filing. States with successful
programs also have had adequate time to test, develop and promote the new program
before it began.
The winning states overall are doing an outstanding job of offering disclosure information
online in a variety of formats. Their web sites are well designed and respectful
of the average user's needs. Winning states also share
another important characteristic; they are among the most populous states, which
means they have more state resources and likely a greater demand for better disclosure,
since larger states are usually home to more expensive political campaigns.
However, just because a state won this year's award doesn't mean they have completed
the job. Nor is there any guarantee that a state won't reverse an electronic filing
mandate. Hawaii, Virginia and Louisiana all have yet to enact mandatory e-filing
requirements for legislators. Michigan is currently operating a voluntary e-filing
program and has yet to require electronic filing of state candidates. California's
big test will come in 2000, when the state's 1997 law is fully implemented. The Illinois
legislature considered a last-minute repeal of its electronic filing mandate in late
1999.
VIII. Electronic Filing
Electronic filing programs get started in a number of ways -- either the legislature
passes a law, the agency begins the program on its own, or one is provided for by
initiative. Setting up an electronic filing program doesn't have to be expensive,
but it does take dedicated staff and resources. Such programs require security, verification,
training, software and hardware. The best programs provide free software for filers,
and offer a standard filing format that private vendors can use with commercial campaign
management software. Though it can be challenging for disclosure agencies and filers
alike to transition from paper to electronic filing, in the long run this method
of disclosure is more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally-friendly.
* Voluntary vs. mandatory electronic
filing
Some electronic filing programs are voluntary, permitting candidates for statewide
and legislative offices to file their disclosure reports in a digital format. Other
states have passed laws that require electronic filing by candidates for state offices.
While a voluntary program is better than none at all, it takes a mandatory program
to guarantee comprehensive and timely online access to disclosure records.
Most mandatory programs require specific candidates who raise money over a certain
threshold to disclose electronically. The threshold can make a big difference in
determining how many reports are filed electronically and get published online. New
York has the lowest threshold in the country at $1,000, virtually guaranteeing 100
percent participation. California and Oregon have the same threshold - $50,000 -
but in California campaigns are generally more expensive and therefore more candidates
will likely end up being required to file electronically in California than in Oregon.
Mandatory electronic filing represents a significant change in public policy, and
generally requires amending disclosure laws. (Oklahoma's disclosure agency attempted
to require electronic filing through regulation, only to see its requirement repealed
by the legislature.) So far 17 states have some kind of mandatory electronic filing
requirement. Of these states, ten have mandated electronic filing for statewide candidates,
including Texas, Oregon and Missouri, which enacted mandatory electronic filing programs
just this year. Currently nine states require electronic filing by both legislative
and statewide candidates. The legislatures of California, Illinois, Maryland, New
York, Wisconsin, Texas and Oregon deserve credit for including themselves under electronic
filing requirements.
Many states include PACs, lobbyists, parties and other kinds of filers under mandatory
electronic filing laws as well. Electronic filing legislation is pending in many
other states. Digital disclosure is an issue that has enjoyed bipartisan support
across the country, with political leadership being provided by secretaries of state,
governors, and legislators alike.
Many states begin with a voluntary e-filing program, which can help the disclosure
agency and filers alike transition to a mandatory program. However, voluntary programs
do not always result in online disclosure. For example, if only one candidate in
a race files electronically, some disclosure agencies choose not to place those records
online because they feel it is unfair to subject that candidate to more public scrutiny
than others. Some states, like Louisiana, address this fairness issue by data-entering
or scanning reports of candidates who filed on paper, so that all candidate reports
are online regardless of how they filed. Voluntary electronic filing programs are
most effective in states like Virginia, where disclosure advocates are encouraging
filers to participate. Offering free, user-friendly software and training filers
how to use it also helps encourage candidate participation.
* The need for funding
Some legislatures have adequately funded e-filing programs, others have not. Often
funding is left out of voter initiatives, which appears to be holding up development
of e-filing programs in Maine, Massachusetts and Colorado. Other states have begun
electronic filing programs with in-house resources that later stall due to unexpected
costs or a lack of funding. A total of 31 states were found to have adequate funding
to advance electronic filing and online disclosure.
* Software and standard filing
formats
State funding for e-filing programs often pays for the development of free or low-cost
software that candidates can use to file electronically. A good software program
can help lessen the filer's workload and make the filing process less burdensome.
Illinois and New York report a positive response to their user-friendly software
programs. Other states, including North Carolina, Missouri and Wisconsin have had
problems developing e-filing software, resulting in delayed implementation of electronic
filing programs.
Arizona and Minnesota offer free software with extra bells and whistles such as the
ability to perform "mail merge" functions in order to generate thank-you
notes to contributors. However, while enhanced programs can help entice filers, the
more complex a program, the longer it is likely to take to develop it, and the more
costly it may be to maintain. Many candidates have already invested in commercial
campaign management software and would like to continue using it. The most simple
and cost-effective solution is for states to offer free basic software and also develop
a standard filing format that vendors can use to develop or modify commercial software.
With so many states advancing electronic filing, it became apparent to disclosure
agencies and advocates that a universal filing format could help reduce the cost
of e-filing and save agencies time and energy and avoid "recreating the wheel".
In 1997, the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) began an effort to develop
a universal filing format that could be adopted by state and local disclosure agencies
nationwide. COGEL formed an "X-12" committee (X-12 is a standard used by
industry groups to provide for standardized forms). About twenty states participated
in the effort, and quickly discovered that one major impediment to a universal filing
format is that different states have different disclosure requirements. The COGEL
group persevered, and in early 1999 a universal format was approved, which several
states and jurisdictions are planning to adopt.
States accept electronically-filed records in several different ways. Some have candidates
file their reports on computer diskette. A common problem with this method is that
diskettes can get damaged in transit to the disclosure agency. Other states have
candidates file their reports over the Internet, either by attaching a document to
an email message, or using a web-based form to submit their records. One major advantage
of Internet-based electronic filing is that it is easier to get the data online immediately.
IX. Online Disclosure
States are using a variety of methods to make campaign finance data available
on the Internet. While electronic filing is the ideal, states that lack or have limited
electronic filing programs are still succeeding in providing online disclosure through
scanning and data-entry. It's important to note that successful electronic filing
program don't always result in good online disclosure. Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico,
Wisconsin and Minnesota all have electronic filing programs operating, but offer
little or no data online.
* Itemized contributions
Every state requires candidates to publicly disclose a list of their campaign contributors.
Generally, information disclosed for each campaign contribution includes: name of
contributor, date of contribution, amount, and the contributor's address, occupation
and employer. PACs and committees usually are required to disclose ID numbers as
well. Not all itemized contributions online include this level of detail, however.
States have different disclosure requirements, and some states are not publishing
all the information reported for each contribution. Often the complete address is
not available, either to save data entry time, or to protect a donor's privacy.
* Public disclosure and privacy
rights
The California Voter Foundation has studied the issue of privacy and public disclosure
and believes a good balance between these two needs can be found by redacting the
street address for individual contributors, while still disclosing the contributor's
city, state and zip code online. Street addresses for other types of contributors,
such as PACs, parties and businesses should be disclosed online. As paper filing
is phased out, disclosure experts will have to address what to do about redacted
data that may not be available in another format. States might consider making a
complete database of contribution information available upon request and under the
condition that the data not be used for commercial purposes. In this way, reporters
and others doing serious research can have their need accommodated, while at the
same time protecting contributors from potential abuse from the direct marketing
industry or other fundraising efforts.
* Accessing the data
Ideally, itemized contributions are available to search, browse and download. Currently,
ten disclosure agency web sites offer users the ability to search, browse or download
itemized campaign contributions. By making the data available in various ways, disclosure
agencies ensure they can meet the public's diverse needs. The curious citizen who
wants to know who's making campaign contributions to his representative may not know
the representative's name. The reporter on a deadline who wants to know how much
money the governor received from a particular industry group will want to quickly
search the records by contributor field. The academic studying campaign finance patterns
may want to download records in a tab or comma-delimited format to create an offline
database. Offering these three key features -- search, browse and download -- guarantees
that the data will meet the needs of a wide variety of users, from beginners to advanced.
* Availability of historic records
States are using their web sites to publish historic as well as current disclosure
data. Oregon and New Jersey offer extensive data going back more than ten years.
Pennsylvania has adopted the troubling policy of offering only current data, and
is either blocking access to or removing electronically-filed records. There is no
policy advantage to this approach. Only one other state was found to have removed
files that had previously been published, and that reportedly was due to an anticipated
site redesign.
* No access fees
The Digital Sunlight survey found that no states are currently charging the public
to access online disclosure data. Though states don't charge users for viewing paper
records, they do charge a fee -- anywhere from five cents to a dollar per page --
to copy paper records. Generally these fees are charged simply to cover copying costs,
but can quickly add up depending on the scope of one's research. Some states also
charge a small fee to cover the cost of making copies of reports filed on diskettes.
* Scanning and data-entry
While scanned or data-entered records are better than no records at all, there
are significant limitations to using this technology to provide online disclosure.
Scanned reports can only be browsed and cannot be easily searched or analyzed. Scanned
reports are often difficult to read, as they are images of original paper copies
that are sometimes completed in handwriting. Some states have chosen "tiff"
or other less universal formats to publish scanned pages that require special plug-ins
or programs in order to view. The scanned files that were easiest to view were those
published in PDF, which can be viewed with the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, or as "gif"
images which can be viewed in any web browser. Another drawback with scanned files
is that a single report may be a few megabytes in size; downloading a lot of scanned
reports may take a long time over a slow Internet connect and require considerable
hard disk space. An advantage of scanned reports is that they offer a picture of
the complete report exactly as it was filed.
Campaign finance data can also be data-entered and published online. This approach
allows the public to browse or search the records -- an improvement over scanned
files. However, typically not all the information for a record is data-entered. Often
a contributor's complete address or occupation/employer information is left out due
to limited staff resources. Rarely are campaign expenditures data-entered for the
same reason. Data-entry can also result in typing mistakes. In addition, it is a
time-consuming process that frequently results in long delays between the time the
report is filed and the time the data is made available online.
* Voluntary disclosure on campaign
web sites
Some candidates are beginning to disclose their campaign finance reports on their
own campaign web sites. Praise should go to candidates who are active participants
in the online disclosure movement. However, it's important to remember that campaign
data published on a campaign web site may be incomplete, and is no substitute for
official disclosure records filed with official state agencies. Voters are better
served when candidates voluntarily file electronically with disclosure agencies.
* Locating online disclosure information
One of the biggest and most common problems with online disclosure information is
locating it. Too often it is assumed that the public knows which agency is responsible
for campaign finance disclosure. It would be helpful if state web sites included
topics such as "elections" or "campaign finance records" on the
index page of the state's official web site. Many state web sites provide a search
engine that lets people search for and locate documents on all state agency sites.
One method used to locate the state disclosure agency was to enter a search term
such as "campaign contributions" or "campaign finance data".
This method worked the best for locating the agency responsible for disclosure.
* Site design and performance
Once the user gets to the disclosure agency's web site, it's still not always easy
to find campaign finance information. Sometimes the records are buried under a series
of links, often beginning with the header, "Candidates". In Texas, candidates'
disclosure reports were found under the header "Supplemental Filings".
On many sites the user needs to know the name of the candidate to search for information.
Some people do start at that point, but others may only know that they want to search
for all candidates for governor, for example, or all candidates in a particular legislative
district. Elections and disclosure are often administered by different divisions
of an agency, or even entirely different agencies. This information needs to be tied
together online to help people make better use of disclosure records.
Slow performance is another problem encountered with some web sites. While there
are slow days on the Internet, and every web site is likely to experience technical
problems or down time, there were a few states where performance was consistently
slow. In Ohio, for example, it took three minutes to download 41 records over a DSL
line. This kind of slow performance could be due to the speed of the connection between
the agency's server and the Internet, or because of the way a database is configured.
Agencies need to check how their sites perform on the Internet from a computer outside
the agency to test the speed of delivery for outside users.
X. Concluding Thoughts
* Advice for digital sunlight
advocates
The success of and continued progress in developing electronic filing and disclosure
programs requires constant vigilance. A program that appears to be on track can quickly
be derailed by its opponents. For example, just as this report was going to press,
Illinois, the top-ranked state in our survey, nearly fell victim to a last-minute
attempt by lawmakers to weaken the state's electronic filing law. The bill died,
but not before it won the support of 40 lawmakers of both parties, including many
"friends" of reform. Alert activists got wind of the pending amendment
and moved fast to draw media attention to it. Several news articles and critical
editorials appeared in Illinois newspapers, and the effort died. What happened in
Illinois is a good example of why it is not enough to pass an electronic filing law;
reform-minded activists must closely monitor implementation of digital disclosure
programs and watch for attempts to weaken or repeal them.
* Suggestions for disclosure agency
staff
The most successful efforts to implement an electronic filing and disclosure program
were made by states that first created a comprehensive strategic plan and implementation
schedule. Those states that attempted to move forward with a piecemeal approach tended
to run out of money or encounter unanticipated needs or obstacles that were difficult
to overcome in mid-project. States with limited or no funding for disclosure should
consider successful strategies and technologies already created and innovated by
better-funded states. Conducting outreach and training programs to instruct candidates
and committees on how to file electronically or use a particular piece of filing
software greatly increases participation in voluntary programs and support for mandatory
ones.
Seeking public input on what is needed and how a project should be implemented is
essential to avoid making embarrassing and costly mistakes. Agencies may want to
consider seeking assistance from outside companies or groups such as universities
or nonprofits to help overcome technical problems and develop an effective e-filing
and Internet disclosure program.
Finally, and most importantly from the perspective of the online user, agencies need
to pay more attention to how their sites are designed. It should not be necessary
to be a computer expert or professional researcher to review and make use of campaign
finance data on the Internet. The best approach is to offer both basic and advanced-level
research tools, and to keep the design simple, clean and user-friendly.
* What it will take to move further
into the digital sunlight
Those states that have been most successful with advancing digital disclosure did
so with support and coordination between the disclosure agency, the governor, the
legislature and the public. The cooperation of all of these vital entities can be
achieved through education and information about why digital disclosure is important,
how it can be achieved, and a relative understanding of what other states are doing
to bring about instant online disclosure of campaign finance records. The Digital
Sunlight Awards and Progress Report can serve as a resource to help all states move
forward and into the digital sunlight.
Kim Alexander is the President of the California Voter Foundation. Stephen Levine is an investigative reporter and co-author of Paper Trails, a Guide to Public Records in California who serves on the California Voter Foundation's Board of Directors.