Oregon Gets Good Grades for Campaign Finance Disclosure
Oregon's campaign finance disclosure laws and the new ORESTAR online reporting system recieved high marks today in a report from the Campaign Disclosure Project. The grades were a large improvement over the project's last report in 2005, making Oregon the most improved state for campaign finance disclosure.
From the Oregonian:
Oregon's new online campaign finance reporting system makes the state the most improved in the nation in campaign disclosure, a new study said Wednesday. The report ranked Oregon third behind Washington and California.The rankings were part of a look at public access to campaign fundraising and spending data. This year's report is the fourth one by the Campaign Disclosure Project since 2003. The project is a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law, and it is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Oregon Legislature and Gov. Ted Kulongoski agreed in 2005 to create the online reporting system, which began operating this January and is searchable by the public. Candidates, campaign committees and political action committees must disclose each fundraising and spending transaction within 30 days, or in seven days within six weeks of an election.
The Campaign Disclosure Project evaluates and grades each state in campaign disclosure laws, electronic filing programs, public access and disclosure Web site usability. Oregon was given a C-minus grade in their last assessment in 2005, placing it 24th at that time. This year, the state received a B-plus grade.
Read the rest. You can find the report's analysis of Oregon as well as other states at the Campaign Disclosure Prject's website.
Discuss.
|
Oct. 17, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 17, '07
Odd, just yesterday I was looking at this from the Center for Public Integrity that gave Oregon a "D" rating for gubernatorial disclosures. I thought the items they took off points for were overall fairly minor, but the study may provide some tips for what could be improved. It looks like legislative disclosure received the same "D" rating.
Oct 17, '07
Wow! This is a really great system! I filled in the form for Gordon Smith and it had no information about him, even though I belive he's raised $4 million.
Oct 18, '07
John, try the FEC.
Oct 18, '07
ORESTAR is where to look for campaign contribution and expenditure information for state and local candidates as well as state ballot measures. ORESTAR and the 2005 legislation that called for its creation are what has greatly improved Oregon's ranking in the 2007 Grading Disclosure study referred to in this post.
The Center for Public Integrity review focuses on statements of economic interest (SEI) reporting by governors. In Oregon SEI reporting by about 4,000 public officials, including the governor, is handled by the Ethics Commission. That reporting is all moving to an electronic system with web-based access as the result of SB 10 passed during the 2007 session. In general, lobbying and economic interest reporting grades should increase as SB 10 is implemented.
The FEC is one place to go for campaign finance information for federal candidates. Another option is opensecrets.org, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Oct 18, '07
"Filing for the Office of" lists "United States Senator" on its menu. Why would the Orestar list this office if they had no intention of providing information about ti?
I'm familiar with OpenSecrets and contribute to them.
Oct 18, '07
Oregon's system would be more effective if the Secretary of State were not refusing to enforce the reporting requirements voters passed in Measure 47 - and which do not require the Constitutional change that Measure 46 included.
Also, realize that reporting requirements are the only type of campaign reform that Republicans generally support. Why? Because they realize that very few voters pay attention to campaign funding sources, but many voters are swayed by the ads that big contributions can buy. So, tight reporting requirements are a good idea, but by themselves do not prevent elections from being purchased.