The
California Voter Foundation (CVF) utilized the criteria
developed for its 1999 “Digital
Sunlight Awards” project,
as well as the grading model developed by Syracuse University's
State and Local Government
Performance Project to inform
the criteria and methodology for Grading State Disclosure.
I. Campaign
Disclosure Laws -- 120 points / 40%
Meaningful campaign disclosure requires comprehensive campaign disclosure laws.
CDP has identified key disclosure requirements that are essential to public
campaign disclosure:
1. Content of the Law -- 84 points / 28%
1.1 Contribution
record (26 points)
• Date (5 points)
• Contributor name and address (5 points)
• Contributor occupation (5 points)
• Contributor employer (5 points)
• Contributor ID number (if applicable) (3 points)
• Cumulative amount (for the year or election) (3 points)
1.2 Type of Contribution (21 points)
• Loan - Date made (3 points)
• Interest rate of Loan (2 points)
• Loan Repayments (due date) (2 points)
• Guarantors (2 points)
• In-kind contribution disclosed (9 points)
• Total for non-itemized contributions (3 points)
1.3 Expenditure information (22 points)
• Vendor name (5 points)
• Subvendor information (3 points)
• Description and/or expenditure codes (6 points)
• Date (4 points)
• Accrued Expenditure (4 points)
1.4 Independent expenditures (15 points)
• Are they reported? (6 points)
• Are last-minute independent expenditures reported? (3 points)
• Does report include who benefits? (3 points)
• Does report include cumulative amount? (3 points)
2. Enforcement (15 points)
• Does the state conduct mandatory reviews and/or field audits? (6 points)
• Enforcement mechanism: Criminal, civil, or both? (6 points) (3 points
for either,6 for both)
• Is there a penalty for late filings? (3 points)
3. Filing Schedule (21 points)
• Pre-election reporting (9 points) (points awarded will depend on the
number of reports required before an election: 1 report = 3; 2 reports =
6; more than 2 = 9)
• Late contribution reporting? (6 points)
• Non-election year filing (6 points) (points awarded will depend on the
number of reports required during non-election years: 2 or more reports =
6; one report = 4; no reporting = 0)
II. Electronic Filing Programs --
30 points / 10%
Electronic filing is key to timely online disclosure. If campaigns send
disclosure data reports to state agencies in a digital format in the first
place, it is feasible to place the data immediately on the Internet in ways
that make it easy to search, browse or download. CVF will evaluate and assess
state electronic filing programs based on the following criteria:
1. Electronic Filing Program (30 points)
• Does the state have an electronic filing program? (3 points)
• Is electronic filing mandatory for statewide candidates? (10 points)
(if mandate covers all statewide candidates and the threshold is reasonable =
10 points; voluntary program = 2 points)
• Is electronic filing mandatory for legislative candidates (8 points)
(If mandate covers all legislative candidates and the threshold is reasonable
= 8 points; voluntary program = 1 point)
• Is there adequate funding for an electronic filing program? (3 points)
• Does the state provide training and/or technical assistance to filers?
(3 points)
• Is filing software and/or web-based filing available? Is it free? Does
the state have a standard filing format? (3 points)
III. Disclosure Content Accessibility
-- 75 points / 25%
In this category, CVF will look at the degree to
which content included in disclosure reports is accessible
to the public.
1. Accessibility to Disclosure Records on
Paper (12 points)
CVF will assess the degree to which paper records are available to the public.
For each state, CVF will look at how the public gains access to paper records
from state disclosure agencies, by answering the following questions:
• What is the procedure the state uses to facilitate public access to paper
disclosure reports? Can the public obtain them in more than one place? How long
does it take for the state to respond to a request? (9 points)
• How much do the paper records cost? (3 points) (10 cents or less per
page = 3 points; 11-15 cents = 2 points; 16-25 cents = 1 point; more than 25
cents = 0 points)
2. Scope of Disclosure Records on the Internet
(18 points)
• Is the state publishing campaign finance data on the Internet? (3 points)
• How quickly are the data made available on the Internet? How up to date
is the information online? Is it instantly available as soon as it is reported?
Is it available within 24 or 48 hours? Is it available within a week? Does it
take longer than a week? (4 points)
• What is the scope of the data online? Is data available for all disclosed
reports, or just some? (6 points) (If all reports are online via e-filing or
data entry = 6 points; mix of e-filed data and scanned reports = 3-5 points;
all reports online in PDF = 2 points; some reports online in PDF = 1 point).
• Does the site feature itemized contribution and expenditure data? (5
points)
3. Accessibility to Disclosure Records on the Internet (42 points)
• Does the site offer a searchable database of itemized campaign contributions?
(20 points) (if can search in one report for one candidate = 2 points: or if
can search within all reports of one candidate = 4 points; or if can search across
all filers = 10 points) (In addition, for the following fields: donor, amount,
date, zip code, and employer – one point per searchable field for single
candidate search of all reports; 2 points per searchable field for all filer
search.) (Maximum points for searchable databases will be 2, 9 or 20 depending
on scope of search capabilities.)
• Does the site offer a searchable database of itemized campaign expenditures?
(10 points) (if can search in one report for one candidate = 1 point; or if can
search within all reports of one candidate = 2 points; or if can search across
all filers = 5 points) (In addition, for the following fields: description/code
= 2 points; vendor name = 1 point; amount = 1 point; date = 1 point; field search
points will be awarded only if can search by all candidate’s reports or
across all filers; the same number of search field points will be awarded in
either case). (Max. points for searchable databases will be 1, 7 or 10 depending
on scope.)
• Can you filter or limit the search? (i.e. ability to limit search to
just one election cycle or one candidate) (1 point)
• Are there any types of “smart search” features such as “name
sounds like” or “name contains”? (1 point – no credit
for “hidden” smart search capabilities)
• Can the data be sorted online? (3 points)
• Can the raw data be downloaded for sorting and analyzing offline? (3
points)
• Can you browse an index of a particular candidate’s reports? (2
points)
• Can you browse itemized transactions within a report? (2 points)
4. Accessibility to Disclosure Records in Other Formats (3 points)
• Are disclosure records accessible in other formats, i.e. on disk, CD-Rom,
other? How much does it cost? Is it available from the state or an outside vendor?
(3 points)
IV. Online Contextual & Technical
Usability -- 75 points / 25%
Each state will be
assessed on the usability of the state's campaign
disclosure web site. Usability is divided into
two categories: contextual and technical.
1. Contextual Usability (38 points)
Contextual usability means whether the web site provides essential background
information that helps the public understand what the disclosure laws and campaign
finance limits, if any, are, so that they can monitor campaign finance activities.
When evaluating sites for contextual usability, the following questions will
be answered.
• How easy is it to find the disclosure agency’s contact information?
(2 points) (if it’s on front page or featured on front page = 2 points;
buried =1 or no points; not there = 0 points)
• Does the site provide information, such as summary campaign data and
historical figures to give the public an overview of campaign financing trends?
(8 points) (recent statewide info = 3 points; and/or recent legislative info
= 3 points; and/or historical summaries for either = 2 points.)
• Does the site provide information explaining the state’s campaign
finance restrictions? (3 points)
• Does the site provide information explaining the state’s disclosure
requirements? (3 points)
• Does the site provide a comprehensive list of candidates for recent or
current elections? Does this list include offices and/or district numbers? Does
it include party affiliation? (5 points) (List/office/party = 5 points; list
and office or party = 3 points; list without office or party = 2 points)
• Can the public determine which filers’ reports are available online
and which ones are not? (5 points)
• Are the disclosure reporting periods clearly labeled? (3 points) (if
filing period is featured in a report index = 3 points; if reporting periods
are listed only inside the actual report = 2 point; if unavailable = 0 points).
• Does the site use clear terminology to identify information? (3 points)
• Are original filings and amendments available? Are amendments clearly
labeled? (6 points) (Both original and all amended reports available online =
3 points; and/or amended reports are clearly labeled = 3 points)
2. Technical Usability (10 points)
Technical usability refers to the architecture
of the disclosure web site. A site's
structure, navigation, and database
configuration have great impact on
a site's overall "user-friendliness".
When evaluating a site for technical
usability are, the following questions
will be answered:
• How easy is it to find the disclosure site from the state home page?
(4 points) (if you can find it quickly through a search tool and through a topical
or agency browsing feature = 4 points; otherwise 0 – 2 points)
• Does the site provide instructions for how to use it? (3 points)
• Can the features on the site be easily utilized with a dialup modem and/or
a machine with limited RAM? (3 points)
3. Usability Testing (27 points)
One of the best ways to evaluate a disclosure web site's usability is to see
how easy or difficult it is for someone to use the site. One of the challenges
disclosure agencies have faced with their web sites is trying to meet the needs
of both the high-end, advanced users and the low-end casual users. CVF and
the UCLA School of Law will recruit a group of upper division social science
students to help assess the usability of disclosure web sites. They would fall
somewhere in the middle of the casual-to-advanced scale of users; interested
in politics and familiar with technology, but not familiar with the politics
in the states they will be evaluating.
To evaluate usability, the evaluators will answer the following seven questions:
1. Find the campaign disclosure webpage for this state. Copy the site URL into
the space below.
2. From the list you were given, find the name of the Governor of this state.
How much money did this person raise in their last election campaign? Enter
that amount in the space below.
3. Find a list of contributors to the Governor's last campaign. Identify one
contributor from that list. In the space below, provide the name of the contributor,
the amount of the contribution, and any other identifying information (street
address, city, zip code, occupation, employer, etc.)
Post-task survey (after each state):
4. How confident are you that you answered the three questions accurately?
(1. Very confident 2. Somewhat confident 3. Not very confident 4. Not at all
confident)
5. Was the disclosure terminology on this website easy to understand or was
it confusing? (1. Very easy to understand 2. Somewhat easy to understand 3.
Somewhat confusing 4. Very confusing)
6. On a scale of one-to-five, with one being Terrible and five being Excellent,
how would you rate your overall experience on this disclosure site?
7. Did this site require any uncommon software, plug-ins or browser features
in order to view the information? (1. Yes 2. No)
|
