States of Disclosure

West Virginia could pull ahead on ethics front

By Caitlin Ginley

West Virginia stands to gain at least 21 points in our States of Disclosure project, following passage of an ethics bill yesterday in the House of Delegates that appears likely to become law.

States of Disclosure

New year for ethics in New York?

By Caitlin Ginley

New York Governor David Paterson is expected to announce a sweeping ethics reform package Wednesday, which is already being hailed as “the most ambitious ever suggested by a sitting governor in New York.” The proposals would create an independent commission to enforce ethics and campaign finance laws, and impose term limits for statewide officials, while revamping the state’s campaign finance system.

States of Disclosure

Do Michigan, Idaho, and Vermont want out of the basement?

By Caitlin Ginley

Since the Center began keeping track of state financial disclosure laws in 1999, three states have stood out somewhat notoriously for, well, doing nothing. Idaho, Michigan, and Vermont have consistently finished tied for last — and have received a grade of F — because they have no laws whatsoever requiring any sort of financial disclosure for legislators. Might that change? The answer is different in each of the states. Here’s an update on the state of play.

States of Disclosure

D.C. council passes ethics code, but does it pass our ethics survey?

By Caitlin Ginley

Earlier this week the District of Columbia Council unanimously approved emergency legislation to establish the city’s first “Code of Official Conduct.” Chairman Vincent C. Gray proposed the measure to set “unusually high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality” and ultimately prevent conflicts of interest. Council member — and former mayor — Marion Barry, who recently came under fire for allegedly awarding a city contract to his girlfriend, thanked Gray for introducing the measure even though “all of us have followed [the rules] anyway.”

States of Disclosure

Ethics news in New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Mississippi

By Caitlin Ginley

There’s been movement on the ethics front in at least five states since the Center released its States of Disclosure rankings back in late June. Most legislatures aren’t in session, but there are nevertheless new developments regarding ethics legislation and financial disclosure rules in New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Mississippi.

States of Disclosure

New York legislature blocks ethics changes

By Caitlin Ginley

The New York state Senate voted against transparency last night when it failed to pass a plan that would reform the state’s ethics laws.

States of Disclosure

Michigan moving up?

By Caitlin Ginley

Citing his state’s poor showing in the Center’s States of Disclosure ranking, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox yesterday proposed an ethics reform package that would require state officials to annually disclose personal financial information. The Center has repeatedly called attention to the fact that Michigan is one of only three states that fails to disclose outside financial interests.

States of Disclosure

State ethics update — July 31

By Caitlin Ginley

Since the release of our States of Disclosure report last month, we’ve been monitoring discussions in state capitols about the need for tougher disclosure requirements — particularly among some states that came in at the bottom of our list, like West Virginia and Idaho.

Rankings

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


Rankings

South Dakota: Legislative financial disclosure ranking

South Dakota

Rank: 30     |     Points: 60     |     Grade: D

Secretary of State, Elections Division

Question Answer Points Notes
Requires financial disclosure filing? Yes 1
Requires complete financial disclosure filing (no update)? Yes 1
Requires financial disclosure filing annually? No 0 Filings required only as candidates.
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? 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? No 0
Spouse officer/director information required and clear? Yes 4
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? Yes 3
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? No 0
Real-property information not narrowly defined? No 0
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? No 0
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? No 0


Pages