|
Disclosure Content Accessibility is an area in which a majority
of states have significant room to improve. Seven states
received A grades for Disclosure Content Accessibility, and
four states received Bs. Seven states received Cs, and
eight states received D grades in this category. Nearly
half the states, 24, failed the accessibility assessment; Montana,
South Carolina, and Wyoming were found to have no disclosure
data at all on their web sites, and the others that failed have
either very little data or provide it in formats that make it
difficult to access.
- All 50 state disclosure agencies have a site on the World
Wide Web.
- 47 states post campaign finance data on their web sites.
- 3 states – Montana, South Carolina and Wyoming – have
no campaign finance data available on their web sites.
- 27
states provide searchable databases of contributions
online.
- 17 states provide searchable databases of expenditures
online.
States with the best accessibility to campaign finance information,
in rank order from one to eight, are: Washington and
Michigan (tied); Ohio; Rhode Island and Texas (tied); Massachusetts
and Hawaii (tied); and Florida, Illinois and Maryland (tied).
States with the weakest accessibility to campaign finance
information, in rank order from 40 to 50 are: Oregon,
Minnesota and West Virginia (tied); North Dakota; New Hampshire;
New Mexico; Alabama; Montana; Tennessee and Wyoming (tied);
and South Carolina.
The study found that over half the states provide searchable
databases of campaign contributions on their web sites, and
17 provide expenditure databases, although the quality and
comprehensiveness of those databases vary widely depending
on the state. One surprising finding was that states
with voluntary electronic filing programs are just as likely
to have an online contributions database as those states
with mandatory electronic filing. Although the searchable
databases in states with mandatory electronic filing are
more comprehensive than those in states with voluntary electronic
filing, this was nonetheless an encouraging finding and a
sign that states with voluntary programs are inclined to
make the most of the data they receive.
The best
campaign finance databases include: itemized
data for all
filers; the five searchable fields of contributor name,
amount, date, employer, and zip code; “smart
search” features and innovative database functions;
the ability to sort and/or download search results; clear
and thorough instructions for how to use the systems; and
explanations of data content and history.
Florida's
top-rated comprehensive database offers a “name
sounds like” search option, a “contribution totals” feature
that gives quick summary figures, and a complete “How
to Use the Campaign Finance Database” section. Michigan's
system allows searches for both “zip code matching” and
“zip codes between”, and by type of campaign
statement (i.e. pre-primary, post-general election). Maryland
offers simple and advanced search screens, allows the user
to specify a case sensitive or case insensitive search, and
gives the total amount of all transactions for a particular
search at the top of the results page.
Users
of Rhode Island's database can opt for details or just
summary information for each transaction returned by a
search, and people searching Washington's database can
limit transactions returned to those relating to a particular
office or party. Illinois provides customized tips for
each type of search (i.e. candidates, contributions, expenditures),
and Ohio includes “output/printing hints” for
its database, which also allows search results to be sorted
on six fields at once.
The average and below-average databases typically fall short
because they lack at least one, if not more, of the characteristics
that define above-average systems. Examples include systems
with records from a very small percentage of filers (Nevada,
Oklahoma), databases with just one searchable field (Connecticut,
Georgia, New York, Utah), and databases that are lacking either "smart
search" features (Delaware, Utah) or instructions for how to use the
system (Maine). Some databases also have significant technical usability
problems; for example, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Oklahoma all have
search fields that are case sensitive, but do not explain that to site users.
Many states – regardless of whether they provide searchable
databases – offer complete campaign finance reports that
can be browsed in HTML or PDF formats. The quality
of browsable files varies as much as the quality of databases,
with some states posting scanned, handwritten documents that
are difficult to read, and others posting very user-friendly
HTML displays of the filings. Twenty states allow
users to sort campaign finance data, either in a database
or within an HTML display of reports, and 24 give site visitors
the option of downloading records in Excel, comma-separated
files, or a similar format that allows the data to be analyzed
offline. A number of states will also e-mail data
or compile it on a disk and mail it upon request.
While many people turn to computers for campaign finance
information, some still need to access disclosure records
on paper (the only option in states that have no
data online), so the Project also assessed how easy it is
to get disclosure reports the old-fashioned way. The
study found that, with a couple of exceptions, it is fairly
easy for people across the country to get copies of paper
campaign finance records. The cost of records ranges
quite a bit, from as little as three cents per page in Ohio,
to as much as one dollar per page in Alabama. In Tennessee,
a person who wants to view records must first disclose his
or her name, address, and other personal information, which
is then made available to the candidate whose records were
viewed. |
