folo

The third day of the Mississippi press consortium’s 2-stories-a-day-for-8-days series relies on two Sun-Herald reporters. Here, I discuss Geoff Pender’s Mississippi lagging in digital requirement for campaign finance forms, and in the following post, Anita Lee’s contribution.

Pender begins,

Basic computer technology – the kind found in almost every office or classroom in America – is giving people easy access to candidates’ campaign finance information in many states.

But not in Mississippi. …

As I began to read this one, I almost immediately thought, “Well, there it is”: the GOBS run roughshod over y’all simply because they can do it in stealth.

Of the 50 states, yours ranks 47th in an annual nationwide study of how well states inform* the voters about where politicians get their campaign donations. While other states are improving on this score, Mississippi slid from a D to an F overall, with Fs in three of four categories surveyed.

Who’s your secretary of state? Pender’s report pulls a punch here, not naming this official, perhaps because s/he just took office last month. What, don’t we need to read that name here? Anyhow, listen to this:

Mississippi’s main problem is that it does not present candidates’ campaign finance information in a searchable database, says Will Barrett, an author of “Grading State Disclosure 2007.” The project is a partnership between the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Center for Governmental Studies, the UCLA School of Law and the California Voter Foundation. …

While Mississippi’s disclosure law is middling, graded a C-minus, the information is not presented in a way that’s easy for the public to determine who might be holding a candidate’s purse strings.

… Mississippi could greatly improve its grade overnight if it were to join the computer age in campaign finance records. Oregon recently did this, rising in the rankings from 24th to 3rd after its Legislature passed a campaign finance disclosure reform package.

While 21 states’ grades improved, Mississippi’s site usability has gotten worse over the past few years, the undergrads who participated in the testing concluded. While Mississippi does provide Internet access to state candidates’ finances, it provides them in a portable-document format, or pdf, which means the files are only pictures of documents. Candidates are required to turn in paper forms, sometimes handwritten, and not computer spreadsheets.

A voter or reporter cannot search the records by computer, or have a computer compile tallies of various donors, expenditures or categories. Because campaign-finance reports for major state races, such as governor or lieutenant governor, can contain hundreds of pages of donor listings per candidate, using the data to determine who, or what industry, is financing a candidate is time-consuming and difficult.

Mississippi is one of only 10 states that does not require electronic filing for any candidates.

You know how much fun playing with pdfs can be — about half the ones I run into here can’t be copied without expensive (and, I hear, ornery) special software, so even if you accidentally get a look at these donorship records, chances are high you’ll need a photographic memory to make any use of them.

Here’s another corker (emph. mine): “Mississippi also is lacking in enforcement of its campaign finance laws and in auditing the records candidates submit for accuracy or conformity with the law. For all intents, the state’s campaign disclosure is on the honor system.”

Pender describes how your recently-retired SoS, Eric Clark, and AG Jim Hood “pushed a major reform package – loosely based on the federal McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act – for several years starting in 2004.”

The Legislature in 2004 approved a package with at least some of the changes Clark promoted. The package had bipartisan support, but Gov. Haley Barbour vetoed it. Barbour said the bill would put limits on contributions to political action committees. Clark said Barbour’s veto created “open season for interest groups to spend millions of dollars to buy Mississippi’s elections.”

Rep. Tommy Reynolds, D-Charleston, chairman of the House Elections Committee, said the disclosure Mississippi requires now is “minimal.”

“What you’ve got is that individuals that give are scrutinized, but the no-name PACs that just flood the state with money are not really scrutinized,” he said. “You can have the Little Sisters of the Poor PAC getting their money from the Osama bin Laden PAC, and just create enough shells that no one can track where it’s from.”

Pender concludes this installment with a discussion of how partisan battles have hornswoggled campaign finance reform in Mississippi, as Democrats (heavily backed by trial lawyers) and Republicans (funded by business interests) both try “to use reform efforts to gain the upper hand. Each side also has tended to use soft money, loans and various forms of PAC financing in ways that cloud the source of the money.”

While Democrats decried the veto by Republican Barbour, Republicans claimed that Democrat Hood and others sneaked an item into the 2004 reform bill at the last minute that would have limited the amount corporations could give political action committees to $2,000, instead of the unlimited amounts allowed now.

“I think we really need reform,” Reynolds said. “But we have to get it out of that partisan divide. Surely we could have a meeting of the minds among people of good will. I really don’t see how disclosure would adversely affect anyone who has a genuine goal of serving the public.” …

“It just doesn’t seem to be a sexy topic that people want to campaign on or want to hear about,” [Sen. Deborah Dawkins, D-Pass Christian] said. “It’s kind of like the plumbing. People want it to work, or they want it to be fixed if you ask them, but mostly they don’t think about it. Everybody is just one crisis away from becoming an advocate for public accountability, but it’s hard to get a groundswell.”

Maybe . . . but damned if I think we foloers are wrong to be busting our butts trying to get that 100-odd-years-overdue groundswell started. What say you?

* Each of these stories has a sidebar (well, online it’s more of a bottom-bar) carrying interesting related facts. In today’s I find reason for Arkansan and Alabamian shame — but Floridian pride:

A glance at Southeastern states’ campaign finance disclosure laws

Here’s comparison of some Southeastern states’ campaign finance disclosure laws:

Louisiana disclosure laws are considered among of the best in the country, with strong expenditure disclosure and enforcement provisions. Electronic filing is required of statewide candidates raising at least $50,000, but is voluntary for legislative candidates. Louisiana publishes databases of both contributions and expenditures that offer many search, sort and download options. The public can now obtain campaign data on discs.

Arkansas‘ disclosure laws are among the worst, but the state has begun to make significant improvements, including the implementation of voluntary electronic filing in 2007. The quality of online access to some reports is poor, due to quality of scanning and the legibility of handwritten reports. The state requires monthly filing of reports during election years.

Tennessee enacted the “Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006″ following the governor’s formation of a citizen advisory group on ethics and the formation of a new legislative ethics committee. The law expands candidate disclosure requirements and makes electronic filing mandatory for all candidates who raise or spend $1,000 for an election. The state’s Web site has been improved. It provides a searchable database for contributions, but not expenditures.

Alabama’s disclosure laws are among of the worst in the nation. The state lacks independent expenditure reporting and auditing of reports. The state’s Web site is cumbersome and slow, and reports are not in a searchable format. Bills aimed at improving the disclosure laws were killed during the 2007 legislative session.

Florida is among the top states in campaign finance disclosure. Candidates are required to report details about contributors giving more than $100, including occupation. Expenditure disclosure is strong, with candidates reporting subvendor information and accrued expenditures. The law’s enforcement provisions, including mandatory reviews and field audits, are strong. Florida has mandatory electronic filing for all statewide and legislative candidates and does not allow exceptions for this requirement. The state’s disclosure site offers searchable databases of contributions and expenditures that cover 10 years of filings. Candidate reports are made available immediately upon receipt.

Neener neener neener