Posted by As the beginning of the 2011 Regular Legislative Session approaches, there has been a great deal of attention paid to the budget problems facing Alabama. This is the biggest issue facing our state; however, there are other issues that I will address in the upcoming months as well. Several bills are merely being reintroduced for a second or third try on my part. One bill I am particularly interested in this session is the requirement to file campaign disclosure reports online.
This legislation sounds like something of a no-brainer, but apparently it is not. I have introduced this bill eight times only to see it defeated on every attempt. The bill would require candidates running for political office in Alabama to disclose their campaign contributions through an online electronic system as opposed to the archaic method of submitting paper documents like we do now.
In recent years, voters could only obtain such information by traveling to Montgomery, searching through hard copies of filed reports, and paying $1 a page to have them copied. Recognizing the difficulty of this process, the state finally started scanning these reports and has made them available on the Internet. While this allows for more light to shine on state campaign activities, there are still some obvious restraints. Scanned reports do not allow voters to easily search their contents for specific donors, and interested citizens must still spend hours on the Internet to gather the information they need.
Under this legislation, once a campaign disclosure report is filed, the electronic report will become part of a database allowing citizens to search contributors by name which gives them a full picture of who gives and receives money in statewide elections. This system will be similar to the searchable databases that are used by the Federal Elections Commission which monitor congressional and presidential races.
My bill alone is not enough to bring one hundred percent transparency to our political campaigns. State Senator Arthur Orr is sponsoring legislation that will add to the benefits of online disclosures. His legislation will close the loopholes that have allowed for campaign contributions to be made right before an election and are never reported until months after the election occurs. Mandating an immediate disclosure of campaign contributions that are received within 10 days of an election would prohibit special interest groups from secretly pouring millions of dollars into a campaign without the public ever knowing the source of those monies. I look forward to supporting this effort by Senator Orr.
There are several other measures being considered in the upcoming session to bring more transparency to political fundraising. I hope that we can look back on the 2011 Regular Session and say that Alabama finally made it into the 21st Century when it comes to campaign finance disclosure laws. The public deserves nothing less.
Thank you Senator Ward for this step forward. I would love to see this data available through a search that is more robust than just name. As a citizen, I would love to have full access to the datasets via downloads.
Take a look at Sunlight Foundation’s 10 principles for open data
http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/
For datasets the government makes available, these principles help define the standards for “open data.”
Senator Ward, hopefully these other measures will extend to enhanced public transparency by requring the reporting to the state of sources of revenue and expenditures by third party groups(527′s). Too often, these groups spend large sums of money to influence state-wide votes on ballot issues or to run attack ads on candidates without the public even knowing who is behind the ads. These groups should have to meet the same reporting requirements as candidates and PACs. Contributions to candidates and PACs have to be reported, why not contributions to third party groups? Also, hopefully, the loopholes will be closed in the recently passed lobbyist bill to require the reporting of expenditures and by tightening the other requirements regarding expenditures by lobbyists on public officials.
[...] Cam Ward has a great article at Doc’s Political Parlor describing legislation to bring more transparency to campaign finance in this state. Currently [...]
With the current budget “crisis” a) how much will this cost?, and b) how will you pay for it?
Very little if any costs. Most of this can be done by staff I’m house and would surely be cheaper than hand scanning all those reports like they do now.
Senator Ward is correct. This process could be developed in house, should not take very long to develop, and in the long run would be cheaper than paying staff to process the reports. The current process does not add much value. Having all this information locked away in PDF is not beneficial.
Each PAC and campaign committee that is required to file electronically should pay an annual fee to the Sec of State Elections Division to maintain the electronic system. However, the current forms require a notary seal. This is not something you can do online. The details will need careful attention in the legislation.
Requiring each PAC to pay the fee may cut down on the sheer number of the PACs. In fact, why not limit a person to only one PAC. I have see figures that report one individual with 52 PACs!
Next step … limit campaign spending to actual camapaign expenses. Current law lets elected officials spend on “expenses of the office held.” This is a large loophole that allows spending on just about anything and provides a channel for bribery.
All good points. Looks like we’ve found a subject that most can agree on.
I say let’s have a 10% of all contributions to a PAC, and those would be earmarked for the general fund.
Kumabya time over. Why should businesses and organizations that lawfully establish PACs pay for the political process so unions and trial lawyers can use it for free?
Funny!!! This is the same bill the D’s sponsored in the last special session that the R’s would not allow to pass. Just look it up on Alison website. Like I said Funny!!!
Funny!! I have never seen this bill brought up by anyone other than Arthur Orr and myself. Of course if it was finally brought up by D’s in the special session I am glad to see they finally got on board after having Ken Guin block my bill for 8 years in a row. Maybe this is a bill that we can all agree on to support. Now that would be funny. I actually sponsored in 2003 for the first time and have handled it ever since. I would love to see the Dem who sponsored this bill in the special come out and help me pass this bill. They sure spent a good amount of time over 8 years blocking it on the House floor. Funny!!
Cam, I want to thank you for letting me work with you on this legislation. It has been a long time coming.
D.W., take a look at HB151, a bill that incorporates much of Sen. Ward’s work in the past. It holds 527′s to the same standards as PACs.
slick… If you’re correct and there really were a D who brought this up in the special session, you’ve got a great opportunity to be a hero! Just let him/her know that the R’s are ready, again, to pass the bill. Give ‘em Cam Ward’s phone number.
Senators Ward and Orr are looking for D’s who’re more principled than the democrat that routinely killed that bill eight times. Who was that house member?
Oh yeah, Ken Guin…the infamous FORMER house democrat majority leader and super-slick triple-dipper. He collected $98,000 of taxpayer money, annually, for holding two bogus jobs in community colleges. Turned in the exact same time sheet for both jobs.
Ain’t it great that Guin got justifiably HAMMERED (69%-31%) in the general election?
You da man, slick. Make some calls.
Thank you Joe Hubbard. i will check out HB 151 to see what reporting requirements for 527′s it has.