States of Disclosure from The Center for Public Integrity

Georgia: Legislative financial disclosure ranking

Georgia

Rank: 7 | Points: 81 | Grade: B

Question	Answer	Points	Notes
Requires financial disclosure filing?	Yes	1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing (no update)?	Yes	1
Requires financial disclosure filing annually?	Yes	1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing for candidates?	Yes	1
Employment information required?	Yes	5
Employment information not narrowly defined?	Yes	5
Employer/business name required?	Yes	5
Employment job title required?	Yes	2
Employer description required?	Yes	2
Value range/income amount required?	No	0
Spouse employment information required and clear?	Yes	5
Officer/director information required?	Yes	4
Officer/director information not narrowly defined?	Yes	4
Officer/director entity name required?	Yes	4
Officer/director entity description required?	Yes	2
Spouse officer/director information required and clear?	Yes	4
Investment information required?	Yes	3
Investment information not narrowly defined?	No	0	Filers not required to report investments unless own 10 percent or more than $20,000.
Investment entity name required?	Yes	3
Investment entity description required?	Yes	2
Investment value range/holding amount required?	No	0
Spouse investment information required and clear?	Yes	3
Client information required?	No	0	No information on private clients required. However, filers required to report annual payments from state, which does not factor into points for this question.
Client name required?	No	0
Client value range/income amount required?	No	0
Spouse client information required and clear?	No	0
Real-property information required?	Yes	2
Real-property information not narrowly defined?	Yes	2
Real-property value range/amount required?	Yes	2
Spouse real-property information required and clear?	Yes	2
Spouse name required?	Yes	2
Dependent name required?	Yes	1
Financial disclosure filings in central office?	Yes	1
Lawmakers not forwarded reviewer information?	Yes	1
In-person appearance not required to obtain filings?	Yes	1
Copy fees less than 50 cents per page?	Yes	1
Blank disclosure form available on Web?	Yes	1
Disclosure filings available electronically or on the Web in any format?	Yes	3
Late-filing penalties on the books?	Yes	1
Misfiling penalties on the books?	Yes	1
State has auditing authority?	Yes	1
State routinely reviews filings for accuracy and completeness either through formal audit process or informal review process?	Yes	1
State published list of delinquent filers on Web or in printed document?	Yes	1

Minnesota: Legislative financial disclosure ranking

Minnesota

Rank: 40 | Points: 53.5 | Grade: F

Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

Question	Answer	Points	Notes
Requires financial disclosure filing?	Yes	1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing (no update)?	No	0	Filers submit supplementary statement if most recent filing has changed.
Requires financial disclosure filing annually?	Yes	1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing for candidates?	Yes	1
Employment information required?	Yes	5
Employment information not narrowly defined?	Yes	5
Employer/business name required?	Yes	5
Employment job title required?	Yes	2
Employer description required?	No	0
Value range/income amount required?	No	0
Spouse employment information required and clear?	No	0
Officer/director information required?	Yes	4
Officer/director information not narrowly defined?	No	0
Officer/director entity name required?	Yes	4
Officer/director entity description required?	No	0
Spouse officer/director information required and clear?	No	0
Investment information required?	Yes	3
Investment information not narrowly defined?	Yes	3
Investment entity name required?	Yes	3
Investment entity description required?	No	0
Investment value range/holding amount required?	No	0
Spouse investment information required and clear?	No	0
Client information required?	No	0
Client name required?	No	0
Client value range/income amount required?	No	0
Spouse client information required and clear?	No	0
Real-property information required?	Yes	2
Real-property information not narrowly defined?	Yes	2
Real-property value range/amount required?	No	0
Spouse real-property information required and clear?	No	0
Spouse name required?	No	0
Dependent name required?	No	0
Financial disclosure filings in central office?	Yes	1
Lawmakers not forwarded reviewer information?	Yes	1
In-person appearance not required to obtain filings?	Yes	1
Copy fees less than 50 cents per page?	Yes	0.5	Half point awarded because mailed copies are 50 cents per page; in-office copies are 10 cents per page.
Blank disclosure form available on Web?	Yes	1
Disclosure filings available electronically or on the Web in any format?	Yes	3
Late-filing penalties on the books?	Yes	1
Misfiling penalties on the books?	Yes	1
State has auditing authority?	Yes	1
State routinely reviews filings for accuracy and completeness either through formal audit process or informal review process?	Yes	1
State published list of delinquent filers on Web or in printed document?	Yes	1

Oregon: Legislative financial disclosure ranking

Oregon

Rank: 19 | Points: 70.5 | Grade: C

Oregon Government Ethics Commission

Question	Answer	Points	Notes
Requires financial disclosure filing?	Yes	1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing (no update)?	Yes	1
Requires financial disclosure filing annually?	Yes	1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing for candidates?	Yes	1
Employment information required?	Yes	5
Employment information not narrowly defined?	Yes	5
Employer/business name required?	Yes	5
Employment job title required?	No	0
Employer description required?	Yes	2
Value range/income amount required?	No	0
Spouse employment information required and clear?	Yes	5
Officer/director information required?	Yes	4
Officer/director information not narrowly defined?	No	0
Officer/director entity name required?	Yes	4
Officer/director entity description required?	Yes	2
Spouse officer/director information required and clear?	Yes	4	Change from 2006: Spouse is now clearly indicated.
Investment information required?	Yes	3
Investment information not narrowly defined?	Yes	3
Investment entity name required?	Yes	3
Investment entity description required?	Yes	2
Investment value range/holding amount required?	No	0
Spouse investment information required and clear?	Required and Not Clear	1.5	Half points awarded because spouse investment information is required, but not clearly indicated on form.
Client information required?	Yes	2	Filers required to report clients if have a legislative interest.
Client name required?	Yes	2
Client value range/income amount required?	No	0
Spouse client information required and clear?	No	0
Real-property information required?	Yes	2
Real-property information not narrowly defined?	Yes	2
Real-property value range/amount required?	No	0
Spouse real-property information required and clear?	Required and Not Clear	1	Half point awarded because spouse real-property information is required but not clearly indicated on form.
Spouse name required?	No	0	Ethics reform in 2007 required legislators to disclose names of relative and household members, but this provision was removed in the 2009 legislative session. Names of relatives and household members that are listed on the 2008 and 2009 disclosure forms will be blocked out.
Dependent name required?	No	0	Ethics reform in 2007 required legislators to disclose names of relative and household members, but this provision was removed in the 2009 legislative session. Names of relatives and household members that are listed on the 2008 and 2009 disclosure forms will be blocked out.
Financial disclosure filings in central office?	Yes	1
Lawmakers not forwarded reviewer information?	Yes	1
In-person appearance not required to obtain filings?	Yes	1
Copy fees less than 50 cents per page?	Yes	1
Blank disclosure form available on Web?	Yes	1
Disclosure filings available electronically or on the Web in any format?	No	0
Late-filing penalties on the books?	Yes	1
Misfiling penalties on the books?	Yes	1
State has auditing authority?	Yes	1	Change from 2006: State now has audit authority.
State routinely reviews filings for accuracy and completeness either through formal audit process or informal review process?	Yes	1
State published list of delinquent filers on Web or in printed document?	No	0

Louisiana, Mississippi movin’ up; 20 states still flunk

June 25, 2009

Two southern states — Louisiana and Mississippi — made the biggest strides in the Center for Public Integrity’s latest financial disclosure rankings for state legislators, but 20 out of the 50 states still received a failing grade and three of those states have no disclosure requirements at all.

Fourteen states in all have improved their disclosure laws since the Center’s last survey in 2006. In addition to Louisiana and Mississippi, Oregon, and Connecticut moved up in the rankings, while Massachusetts suffered the biggest drop.

Among the states that received failing grades are Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota. The number of F's represents an improvement, though minor, over the 24 states that failed in both 2006 and 1999. Idaho, Michigan, and Vermont continue to tie for last place, as no personal financial disclosure laws exist, or have ever existed, in those states.

“Citizens have a right to expect a certain amount of basic and personal information about their elected officials,” said Mary Boyle, vice president for communications for Common Cause. Disclosure laws allow the public “to make a judgment about whether there are conflicts of interest,” Boyle said. When states have weak or nonexistent disclosure laws, she added, “the public knows less about an elected official.”

Continue reading this story

States of Disclosure

State ethics update — June 19

By Caitlin Ginley

June 19, 2009

Here’s our biweekly round-up of recent developments regarding ethics policies in the states. PaperTrail is digging through the news for the latest on this front, so you don’t have to.

Continue reading this story

States of Disclosure

State ethics update — June 5

By Caitlin Ginley

June 5, 2009

Here’s our biweekly round-up of recent developments regarding ethics policies in the states.

Continue reading this story

States of Disclosure

Paterson looks to shake up New York ethics laws

By Caitlin Ginley

May 26, 2009

New York Governor David Paterson announced Tuesday a proposed restructuring of the state ethics commission, following charges that the executive director leaked confidential information to the governor’s office under a previous administration.

Continue reading this story

States of Disclosure

State ethics update — May 22

By Caitlin Ginley

May 22, 2009

PaperTrail provides our biweekly round-up of recent action on ethics policies in the states. We’re digging through the news for any potential changes, so you don’t have to.

Continue reading this story

States of Disclosure

State ethics policies — May 8

By Caitlin Ginley

May 8, 2009

The Center provides our bi-weekly round-up of recent action on ethics policies in the states. We’re digging through the news for any potential changes out there, so you don’t have to.

Continue reading this story

States of Disclosure

State ethics rules — April 27 edition

By Caitlin Ginley

April 27, 2009

The Center provides you with another round-up of recent action on state ethics policies, including a new bill in Tennessee that would fold an independent ethics commission into a larger government body. As part of our ongoing states coverage, we dig through the news for any potential changes, so you don’t have to.

Continue reading this story

Caitlin Ginley

Staff Writer The Center for Public Integrity

cginley@publicintegrity.org

Caitlin Ginley joined the Center in July 2007 as the University of Delaware’s 10th James R. Soles Fellow.... More about Caitlin Ginley

About the Center

Investigations by email

Politics

Accountability

Health

Environment

National Security

Juvenile Justice

Georgia

Minnesota

Oregon

Pages

Inside this investigation

Writers and editors