As
in 2005, little has changed about campaign
disclosure in Utah and the state again
earned an overall F in 2007. Utah had previously
earned a D in the web site usability category,
but slipped down into the F range with
a weaker performance in the 2007 usability
test.
Utah law requires candidates to report
contributors giving $50 or more, but does
not require disclosure of donor occupation
or employer data, or cumulative amount
donated. Last-minute contributions and
independent expenditures are not reported
until after Election Day. Expenditure disclosure
is stronger, but candidates do not have
to report subvendor information. A significant
disclosure improvement was enacted in 2007
when the governor signed Senate Bill 246,
requiring that officeholders file campaign
finance reports annually, rather than once
every other year. Electronic filing of
disclosure reports is voluntary in Utah,
though the State Elections Office reports
an impressive 100 percent of statewide
candidates, and nearly 80 percent of legislative
candidates choose the electronic filing
option, up from 75 percent and 40 percent
reported in 2005, respectively.
Utah’s Disclosure Content Accessibility
ranking slipped in 2007, though the state
again earned a D- in this category. The
Elections Office posts data from electronically-filed
reports online immediately, data-enters
records from paper-filed reports within
one week, and its searchable database of
contributions includes records from both
types of filings. Unfortunately, a number
of shortcomings noted in previous reports
remain: search options are limited; candidates’ complete
reports cannot be reviewed online; and
users cannot search itemized expenditure
records. According to the State Elections
Office, a new web site is under development,
which the agency hopes will improve the
online disclosure system.
A weaker usability test performance dropped
Utah from a D to an F in 2007 in the usability
category as testers had a more difficult
time locating data on the site than in
2005 and expressed less confidence in the
accuracy of the data that they did find.
While the site does provide an overview
of candidate reporting requirements and
schedules, there is no information about
campaign finance rules and restrictions
on the site, and the description of the
data available could be enhanced. The site
offers a nice overview of the total funds
raised and spent by all candidates for
each statewide office (and the House and
Senate as a whole), but does not provide
a breakdown of funds raised and spent by
individual candidates for those offices.
Providing information about state campaign
finance rules and trends would improve
the contextual information on the disclosure
site.
→ Quick
Fix: Provide summaries of totals
raised and spent by each candidate
for a specific office to complement
the office-by-office summary data.
♦ Editor’s
Pick: “Office
Totals Summary” provides overviews
of the total campaign finance activity
(both contributions and expenditures)
for each statewide office from 1998
through 2006. View
image
