back to Introduction • next section
Show Me the Money
Part 7: Emerging Digital Disclosure
by Kim Alexander
Any reporter who has ever tried to “follow the money” knows how time-consuming and frustrating it can be to search through paper records. The experience gives new meaning to the term “looking for a needle in a haystack.” In a typical California election season, for example, more than half a million pieces of paper are filed with the Secretary of State.
Fortunately, all that is changing. Thanks to computer technology and the Internet, campaign contributions and expenditures are rapidly becoming accessible on the Internet, where the data is just a mouse click away. A digital disclosure movement is, in fact, sweeping the nation. It brings with it one of the best opportunities we’ve ever had to achieve the goals of political disclosure, that is, to provide voters with the information they need to make informed choices and ensure that politicians are being held accountable for their contributions and expenditures.
Already at least 30 states are moving toward digital disclosure. In 1997 alone, 13 state legislatures voted to enact new electronic filing laws. Another 17 states already had mandatory or voluntary electronic filing programs in place or in the works. New York City has had an electronic filing program in operation for several years, and numerous other local jurisdictions are jumping on the bandwagon. Though the specifics of the programs vary, all are working toward making campaign finance data more accessible to the public, and all recognize and embrace the fact that a fundamental component of any successful digital disclosure program is electronic filing.
The San Francisco Experiment
While campaign contributions have been data-entered and analyzed on computers for years, the most accurate, cost-effective and timely way to computerize the data is to require it to be disclosed in a digital format in the first place. In 1995 the California Voter Foundation, working with Digital Equipment Corporation, demonstrated the benefits of electronic filing when we built the world’s first real-time, online campaign finance database for San Francisco, whose board of supervisors enacted the first mandatory electronic filing law back in 1993. With the data disclosed by campaigns on diskette, it was possible to put all the contributions and expenditures into a relational database and allow the public to search or browse the records on the Internet within just a few hours of the data being disclosed.
Using the San Francisco campaign finance database, a researcher can find out, for example, how much money San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown raised from people who lived in Sacramento for his mayoral campaign. Entering the word “Sacramento” into the city field and submitting the query to the search engine will, in just a few seconds, return a list of more than one hundred records itemizing every contribution Brown received from Assembly members, staffers and lobbyists in Sacramento.
Without computer technology, this kind of research would take days, if not weeks, making it more unlikely that anyone might pursue it. That’s why electronic filing and Internet disclosure are so important.
The Emerging Digital Disclosure Movement
Agencies across the country, from local county elections offices up to the Federal Election Commission, have been experimenting with electronic filing since the early 1990s. The rising popularity of the Internet in recent years has increased the public’s appetite and demand for better access to government records, including campaign finance data. Thankfully, political leaders and government agencies are, for the most part, responding to this demand for better access and rapidly moving toward digital disclosure.
But for a disclosure agency to make the transition from paper to a digital reporting system is no trivial undertaking. Most agencies start out with a voluntary electronic filing program, so that the system can be tested before full-scale implementation. Many agencies are struggling with the technology and need more support — specifically, funds, staff and technological expertise — in order to make the transition. And while many states are moving toward electronic filing, some legislatures — like Illinois’s — are not appropriating the resources needed to implement the new program. Some of the new programs require electronic filing, but make no provisions to publish the data on the Internet after it has been received.
From Filing Cabinets to You:
A Case Study in California
California’s transition into the digital sunlight provides a good example of the typical progression of events that occurs in the move from paper to digital disclosure. The story begins in 1994, when Republican Bill Jones was elected Secretary of State. Responding to the public’s need for better access to disclosure data, Jones made electronic filing a top priority as soon as he took office. First he convened a panel of 17 experts (including myself) from a variety of fields — journalists, lawmakers, disclosure officials and representatives of public interest organizations. We spent 1995 crafting a plan for electronic filing in California. From the start, everyone agreed it was a good and necessary evolution in the disclosure process. But there were many particulars to be decided. Would everyone have to file electronically? And if not, what would the threshold be? How would we ensure that the reports could be securely transmitted? Would we request the data on diskette, accept it over the Internet, or both? How would candidates and other filers “sign” their digital disclosure reports?
Our panel met several times over the course of 1995 and completed a report that explored these questions, explaining how and why we arrived at our decisions. What emerged next was a bipartisan piece of legislation sponsored by the Secretary of State in 1996 that would have implemented the program designed by our panel. The bill got remarkably far along in the process, considering it was an entirely new policy that had not previously been given much serious consideration by the legislature. Ultimately, the bill was overcome by partisanship and election-year politics, and a number of legitimate questions and concerns raised by legislators.
Taking those concerns into account, a stronger bill was crafted in 1997 and gained even more legislative, public and editorial support. The new bill, Senate Bill 49, ended up becoming one the “hottest” bills of 1997, and won nearly unanimous support in both houses of the legislature, as well as Governor Pete Wilson’s signature.
One reason SB 49 garnered so much attention is that the California Voter Foundation (CVF) tracked the bill’s progress throughout the year, publishing e-mail updates providing a blow-by-blow account of every hearing and vote, enabling journalists and others to track the bill in a meaningful way even if they couldn’t attend every committee hearing and floor vote. By narrating the story and chronicling the events, CVF created a high degree of public interest in the fate of the bill — so much so that, inevitably, legislators felt they couldn’t afford to vote against it. When the bill came to a final vote on the Assembly floor, Democrats in tight races were advised by their caucus consultants not to vote against SB 49, who feared such a vote might become fodder for their opponents.
News of legislative activities and advancements in other states also seemed to have an impact on California’s lawmakers. Though some weren’t exactly anxious to pass SB 49, others didn’t want to see California left behind, and news of state legislatures in New York and Maryland passing electronic filing bills helped keep the pressure on lawmakers in California.
California’s Model Digital Disclosure Law
SB 49 contained a number of provisions designed to make California’s new digital disclosure process a success. To ensure that electronic filing will not be a hardship for candidates, the bill requires legislative candidates who raise or spend $50,000 or more to file their records in an electronic format; candidates below the threshold can file electronically, but are not mandated to do so. The bill also requires that the records be posted immediately on the Internet — which may seem like a “no-brainer” but actually is not included in several of the other electronic filing laws recently passed by state legislatures. SB 49 directs the Secretary of State to develop a standard filing format to ensure that data is disclosed in a uniform manner that allows it to be easily uploaded and analyzed on the Internet. SB 49 also mandates that other political disclosure records filed with the Secretary of State be filed electronically, including reports filed by lobbyists, political parties, political committees and major donors. The bill also directs the Secretary of State to data-enter and publish late contributions — those large, last minute contributions that pour into California campaigns during the final two weeks — on the Internet.
SB 49 appropriated $1.1 million to the Secretary of State to finance the new program — the most generous appropriation for digital disclosure start-up from any state legislature in 1997 — and specifies a phased-in implementation to ensure a smooth transition. First the Secretary of State must develop the standard filing format, which takes considerable time and expertise. All parties involved in disclosure — software providers, treasurers and agency officials — need to participate. The first wave of digital filings will come from statewide candidates and ballot measure campaigns raising or spending at least $100,000 in the 1998 general election. Paper reports will continue to be required as well until the Secretary of State has determined the success of the digital program. Electronic filing will be expanded to legislative candidates and other filers beginning in 1999, with the program fully implemented by the beginning of 2000; however, legislative candidates can voluntarily participate in the 1998 general election electronic filing program if they choose to do so.
The ultimate success of California’s new program remains to be seen and will depend on a number of factors: how easy the new program is for candidates, how smoothly the Secretary of State’s staff can make the transition and the manner in which the data is made available.
Digital Data Equals Political Transparency
The obvious and inevitable goal of the digital sunlight movement is immediate online disclosure of every single campaign contribution and expenditure. If this is achieved, the result will be a far more transparent political system, one that is likely to make politicians think much more carefully about from whom they take money, how they spend it and how they behave in office once elected. The ability for people to see the relationship between money and politics will be especially improved in states like California, where other critical public documents — such as voting records, legislation and the entire directory of state lobbyists — are already available on the Internet. With the addition of campaign finance data, a matrix of information will enable anyone to log on to the Internet, look up a bill, see which political interests are supporting it or opposing it, find out who they contributed to and how those people voted — all in about 20 minutes.
Conducting this kind of research in the dead-tree approach to public records would require at least several days, if not a week or two, to collect all the information needed.
Success in improving public access to disclosure records can be determined by considering the following questions:
- Is the data computerized?
- Is it free?
- Is it accessible on the Internet?
- Is it searchable and browsable?
- Can you download it?
- How quickly is it made available online?
Not “If,” But “When”
That campaign finance data will be online is a given. It is inevitable.
How quickly it happens, and how smoothly the transition will go, depends on a number of factors: public awareness of the issue and demand for better access, a willingness on the part of the disclosure agency to cooperate and the political leadership necessary to enact new digital disclosure laws.
Journalists play an important role in the process. I have found that cynicism is the greatest barrier to enacting better disclosure laws. While California’s legislation was under consideration, many stories were written during periods of conflict, but consensus and success often failed to attract any news coverage. I recall one occasion when a reporter asked me if I thought our Secretary of State was doing all this work for better disclosure just to “look good” so he could get re-elected. Of course that was why he was doing it, I replied, and where was the crime in that? Such behavior on the part of our elected leaders can be viewed as manipulative or, as I see it, as being responsive to the public. How a politician’s efforts are portrayed by the news media has a lot to do with that politician’s incentive to “fight the good fight”; journalists should not underestimate the impact their stories can have on the political players.
Ensuring the Success of Voluntary Electronic Filing Programs
Besides covering electronic filing efforts in a responsible way, journalists can also pressure candidates who have the option of participating in the numerous voluntary electronic filing programs already operating across the country. The California Voter Foundation’s 1998 Online Disclosure Project, funded with support from the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, brings together a number of journalists and news organizations committed to asking legislative candidates whether they will participate in California’s voluntary electronic filing program. By collaborating with news organizations and tracking voluntary filing activities on our web site, we stand to increase the rate of participation while at the same time providing voters with a way to judge a candidate’s commitment to making records available to the public.
Even if your local elections agency doesn’t have a voluntary or mandatory electronic filing program operating yet, you can still ask candidates to provide you with their data on diskette. That’s what a coalition of Virginia news organizations did in 1997. Working in cooperation with the Virginia Public Access Project and the Center for Responsive Politics, they were able to convince all but one of the 1997 statewide candidates to provide their contributions on diskette. With that data, the coalition built one of the most advanced, powerful and user-friendly disclosure databases ever seen.
What’s Next on the Digital Sunlight Horizon
The next step toward meaningful disclosure will be to shorten the time between when contributions are received and when they are publicly disclosed. In the digital age, many people are starting to ask why we should have to wait 6 weeks or 6 months before contributions are publicly disclosed. Disclosure within 48 hours on the Internet is the next step and goal of the digital disclosure movement.
Finally, it’s important to keep an eye on the standardization of filing formats. The Council on Governmental Ethics Laws is leading a group of more than a dozen state disclosure agencies through a process to create a uniform filing format that all agencies can adopt. If this effort is successful, it will not only save agencies from having to “reinvent the wheel” and put together a format from scratch, but it will also enable data to be integrated and analyzed across jurisdictional lines. Imagine how much easier it will be to follow the money when you can simply enter a group’s or person’s name into a web form on the Internet and find out every contribution they gave at the federal, state and local levels.
Eventually, digital disclosure will allow for total transparency of money in politics. Those who use their money to twist and manipulate the law for their benefit at the expense of the rest of us will soon no longer be able to hide the truth in stacks of paper. Digital disclosure will bring an end to the miserable paper chase, and with it a better understanding of the role that money plays in American politics.
Kim Alexander is President of the California Voter Foundation. She can be reached at 2401 L St., 2nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95816; (916) 325-2120; Fax: (916) 325-0444; e-mail: kimalex@netcom.com.
top of page • back to Introduction
• next section