For Immediate Release:  Wednesday, September 17th, 2008
Contact: Kim Alexander or Will Barrett
(916) 441-2494, kimalex@calvoter.org, will@calvoter.org

Sacramento, CA – Access to state-level campaign finance information has improved dramatically since 2003 due to the increase in electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports, according to Grading State Disclosure 2008. The report, released today, represents the fifth nationwide assessment of state campaign disclosure laws and practices conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project and can be found online at: www.campaigndisclosure.org.

Washington State earned an A in 2008 and has ranked first in each of the five Grading State Disclosure studies. California and Michigan also earned As in 2008. Tennessee earned the distinction of being the most improved state since 2003 and Montana improved the most in the last year. Listings of states’ 2008 grades and ranks are attached.

The Campaign Disclosure Project seeks to bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics. The project is a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies, and the UCLA School of Law and is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

“Electronic filing has a direct impact on access to campaign data and how useful that data is online. State disclosure agencies are far more likely to present campaign finance data in ways that allow the public to search, sort, and download the information when disclosure reports are initially filed electronically in a digital format,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

In the 2008 assessment, 40 states earned a passing grade and ten failed. Twenty-four states earned grades in the A or B range, up from just two awarded five years ago. Thirty-six states have improved their grades since 2003 and 26 improved over last year’s assessment. The driving force behind the improvements has been the increase in the number of states requiring that candidates file disclosure reports electronically. Twenty-four states now require both statewide and legislative candidates to file electronically, up from twelve in 2003. In all, 42 states permit candidates to file electronically, 30 of which require electronic filing by some candidates.

“It is very encouraging that so many states have improved, both in the last year and since the first assessment in 2003,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. “Obviously, the fact that ten states failed is disappointing, but voters in most states have far better access to disclosure records than when this project started, even in some failing states.”

The Campaign Disclosure Project evaluates, grades, and ranks each state in four categories: campaign disclosure laws; electronic filing programs; public access to campaign finance data; and disclosure web site usability. The Grading State Disclosure study shows which states provide the best access to disclosure data, areas where states could better serve voters, and suggestions for improvement.

Among the study's significant findings:

• States with the strongest campaign disclosure programs, by rank, are: Washington (1st); California (2nd); Michigan (3rd); Oregon (4th); Florida and Virginia (tied for 5th); Hawaii and Missouri (tied for 7th); Colorado (9th); and New Jersey (10th).

• States with the weakest campaign disclosure programs, by rank, are: New Mexico (41st); Nebraska (42nd); Vermont (43rd); Mississippi (44th); Nevada (45th); Delaware (46th); North Dakota (47th); South Dakota (48th); Alabama (49th); and Wyoming (50th).

• Tennessee earned a B and ranked 13th in 2008, and was the most improved state since 2003, when the state earned an F and ranked 46th. Montana improved the most since 2007, earning its first passing grade and posting campaign finance data online for the first time in 2008.

"Our web site usability tests found that two-thirds of the state web sites improved compared to 2007," said Joe Doherty, Director of the Empirical Research Group at UCLA School of Law. "The states made it easier to find their disclosure pages, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.  Forty-percent of the state web sites were rated poorly.”

Each state was assessed, graded, and ranked for its overall performance as well as its performance in each of the four grading categories. States performed best in the disclosure law and web site usability categories, with 45 states passing and five failing in each. Thirty states passed in the electronic filing category and 20 failed. Thirty-six states passed in the data accessibility category, while 14 failed.

The Campaign Disclosure Project sets a high, but not impossible, standard for state campaign finance disclosure. Grading criteria were developed by the Campaign Disclosure Project partners, the project's advisory board and a panel of expert judges, who also assisted with the grading process. In developing the criteria, efforts were made to balance the concerns of practitioners and government officials with the public's need for timely, complete, and effective disclosure.

State assessments are based on research of state laws as of December 31, 2007, survey results from state disclosure agency staff, web site visits and online research, and web site testing by outside evaluators. Grading State Disclosure 2008 is available in print and online, and features a nationwide overview of state disclosure laws and practices, an assessment of each state, and charts, graphs, and maps illustrating state disclosure performance. The Project’s web site, www.campaigndisclosure.org, also features a database of state disclosure laws and a model disclosure law.

Additional Contacts:

Molly Milligan, Center for Governmental Studies, 310-470-6590 x111, mmilligan@cgs.org
Joe Doherty, UCLA School of Law, 310-206-2675, doherty@mail.law.ucla.edu