Caitlin Ginley stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Policing the politicians; state ethics commissions lack muscle

2013-03-18T14:02:38-04:00

The North Carolina Ethics Commission has received more than 300 ethics complaints since its establishment in 2006 — but it has initiated just 18 investigations through 2010.

The Tennessee Ethics Commission, also established in 2006, has yet to find anyone guilty of an ethics violation. It has heard five complaints in five years — and thrown all of them out.

The Pennsylvania Ethics Commission takes in between 400 and 600 complaints each year. But severe budget cuts have left the panel with only five full-time investigators to handle the workload.

And last year, the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission had its full-time support staff reduced from two people to one.

“It’s just me,” said Jane Feldman, the Colorado commission’s executive director. Feldman said she currently has an annual budget of $224,000 but — unlike commissions in many other states — no investigators or lawyers to initiate real enforcement.

“I don’t think we’re a dirty state. I think we’re a pretty clean state,” Feldman said. “But I think there are cases, especially conflicts of interest issues, where since we don’t have an investigator we don’t follow up.”

Such tales are far from unusual. Some 41 states have government bodies that oversee and enforce state ethics laws. But an examination by the Center for Public Integrity reveals that many of them do little more than provide a false sense of security. In fact, the State Integrity Investigation — a first-of-its-kind probe of accountability in state government — gave grades of either D or F to 28 of those state ethics panels.

The problems and challenges are many. In some states, it boils down to a question of resources — short-staffed agencies with dwindling budgets, outdated, crumbling technology and an increasing workload. Other agencies face restrictions in the law; they can only investigate a complaint if the complainant is willing to be named, or if a majority of commissioners, who may be divided along party lines, agree to pursue a case.

Beyond those obstacles, though, is a more basic and troubling common thread; many of these state ethics watchdogs sport no real teeth. According to the State Integrity Investigation, state ethics commissions remain woefully ill-equipped to properly investigate complaints and dole out punishment.

That’s partly because an inherent conflict stands at the core of the mission: the ethics agency commonly is tasked with policing the same government officials who control its funding, resources and regulatory power.

“The people who it’s policing are the people who give it power,” said Craig McDonald, director of the nonprofit watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. “It has to be independent, or it doesn’t work so well.”

The Ethics Enforcement Gap

Hawaii created the first ethics commission in 1968, but the real spike in the number of state commissions occurred in the 1970s, as the post-Watergate era gave rise to ethics legislation across the country. Several panels — like those in Tennessee and North Carolina — have been established just in recent years, almost always in response to specific government scandals. Only nine states do not have any sort of government agency overseeing and enforcing state ethics laws. Those states — Arizona, Idaho, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming — implement ethics rules through various government agencies, like the attorney general’s office or the secretary of state’s.

Among those states that do have ethics panels, some are clearly making an honest go of it. The Texas Ethics Commission, charged with overseeing campaign finance and lobbying reports, is one of the larger agencies of its kind, with an annual budget of approximately $2 million and 32 full-time employees. According to its latest biennial report covering 2009 and 2010, the commission issued 13 advisory opinions for the two-year period. It assessed more than 2,000 civil penalties for late filings of financial disclosure statements or campaign finance reports but then waived more than half of those.

But it’s not perfect. On the State Integrity Investigation, the commission received a 77 percent — a grade of C+ — for ethics enforcement. The scorecard cited its notorious lack of teeth and a complaint-driven process that discourages robust, independent investigations. On a question about the commission’s ability to initiate investigations, the state received zero points.

Robert Smith, chair of the political science department at Kennesaw State University and a leading researcher on the subject, asserts that “the simple existence of ethics commissions is rather important.” The way Smith sees it, merely having an ethics commission sends a message. “We have an office with the right to police, protect and preserve the notion of integrity,” he says. “We have a public integrity mechanism in place.”

Smith noted that the panels are able to take definitive action — issue fines, write advisory opinions, subpoena documents — that may deter politicians from abusing power. Indeed, ethics commissions in 36 states have the ability to independently initiate investigations. In 37 states, commissions can impose penalties for violations. Twenty-eight states boast commissions that have jurisdiction over all three branches of government, rather than fragmenting enforcement power in separate agencies.

But many of the panels seem hesitant to exercise those powers. Twenty-two states received failing grades from the State Integrity Investigation for their ethics commission — or lack of one. Only two states, New Jersey and Connecticut, earned A grades in this category.

“If [ethics commissions] had more funding, more tools, more enforcement power, or just provided more education,” Smith said, “I think these bodies would be more effective than maybe they are being portrayed.”

Maintaining Independence

In Alaska, members of the Personnel Board, which investigates complaints against the governor, are all appointed by the governor. In Michigan, members of the state’s Board of Ethics typically include former elected officials; currently, a former assistant attorney general and two former legislators sit on the seven-member panel.

In Indiana, members of the ethics commission are appointed by the governor, who also appoints the state’s inspector general. According to the State Integrity Investigation, this creates inevitable “blind spots.” In 2010, the commission waived the state’s revolving door statute to allow the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s general counsel to join Duke Energy, soon after he made several rulings at IURC that would benefit the energy company. The waiver drew immediate criticism and questions about whether the commission is too lenient.

“No way in hell that should have been given a pass,” said Julia Vaughn, policy director of the Indiana chapter of Common Cause, referring to the Duke Energy scandal. She said it has become common practice for government officials to go before the ethics commission to seek waivers from a certain ethics rule, which the commission tends to “rubber stamp.” A 2010 review by the Indiana Business Journal found that the commission had not once — out of 27 post-employment ethics rulings — prohibited a state official from taking a private-sector job and only three times required a one-year “cooling-off” period.

“There’s a tendency for [the ethics commission] to want to avoid controversy,” Vaughn said. “You don’t want to bring the glare of an ethics scandal to the chief executive who appointed you.”

The question of political independence is one that has plagued most ethics commissions, and few states have found solutions. In the State Integrity Investigation, only eight states achieved perfect 100 scores for having a commission that maintains protection from political interference.

“The best type is one that can work without fear of entanglement of political influence,” said Smith of Kennesaw State, who noted that most enforcement agencies have a commission or board in place appointed by government officials. “Why should politics be even part of that process in the first place if you really want a mechanism that is going to make objective opinions?”

The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, for example, is comprised of six former judges appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The governor must choose from a list of candidates developed by a separate nomination panel made up of retired judges.

In Pennylvania, former Rep. Curt Schroder (R-Chester County) sponsored a bill last year to establish a Public Integrity Commission, an independent agency that would have the ability to uncover and investigate cases of corruption at all levels of government. And, to promote political independence, the commissioners would be nominated by a committee made up of law school deans, district attorneys and good government advocates. The governor would select seven members from that list, who then would be approved by the Senate. No more than three commissioners would be from the same political party.

The bill never made it out of committee.

“[The legislature] didn’t want anything to do with this,” said Tim Potts, president of the good government organization Democracy Rising PA , who noted that the current Pennsylvania Ethics Commission is controlled by the governor and legislative leaders. The board consists of seven members: three appointed by the governor, and one each by the president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, and the House speaker.

“They are not eager to have independent people investigating them,” Potts said.

John Contino, executive director of Pennsylvania’s current State Ethics Commission, which would be replaced by the Public Integrity Commission under Schroder’s plan, said the proposed structure is unnecessary.

“There’s never been an op-ed piece, an allegation or any reason to say that [the current ethics commission] is not independent,“ he said. “It’s been nonpartisan all these years.”

But Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, said the concerns of partisanship with the ethics commission are “valid.” He supported Schroder’s bill, in hopes that, besides establishing independence, it would “put a little more teeth in the state ethics law.”

Policing the Powerful: No Teeth, No Bite

The Texas Ethics Commission consists of eight board members: four appointed by the governor, two by the lieutenant governor and two by the House speaker. In order for the agency to pursue an investigation, six out of the eight board members must agree, which, according to Texas attorney and good government advocate Fred Lewis, makes for a dysfunctional body that is rarely proactive about investigations.

Instead, the commission is completely driven by outside complaints, which must be filed by a Texas resident and cannot be anonymous. Executive director David Reisman said the commission must investigate every sworn complaint — and it gets plenty. Last year, more than 370 complaints were filed with the commission.

“The commission must consider each complaint and make a fair and consistent assessment of whether a violation occurred and a fair and consistent penalty if there is a finding of a violation,” Reisman said.

But Lewis contends that the commission rarely goes after serious violations, focusing almost exclusively on minor errors — a criticism echoed by others. The Austin American-Statesman, referring to the commission as a “toothless tiger,” editorialized in April that the agency mostly levies small fines for late filings and called for “more robust enforcement of ethics laws.”

Many state commissions are unable to proactively investigate alleged violations, either because the panel simply does not have the authority to do so in law — like in Florida — or the law requires a lofty standard for launching a probe. In North Carolina, the ethics commission can only pursue investigations if it finds “probable cause” of an ethics violation, a stronger requirement than law enforcement agencies that need only “reasonable suspicion” to pursue a case.

The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission receives between 20 and 25 written complaints each year. Many turn out to be frivolous or out of date (the incident must have occurred within the preceding 12 months). But it falls on the commission’s sole employee, executive director Feldman, to determine whether the complaint is valid.

“It’s hard for me as one person to do what I would consider a thorough investigation,” said Feldman, a former assistant district attorney. “I know what a good investigation looks like, and I just can’t do that.”

The Colorado commission came into being in 2008, when the state was hit by a faltering economy, so it did not start out with adequate resources. But even in the years since, Feldman said the General Assembly has never been especially supportive of the commission, which regulates gifts and travel from lobbyists to lawmakers.

“They find it insulting that somebody would say just because I accepted two [Colorado] Rockies tickets, it would affect my vote,” she said.

Attorney Fred Lewis said that the Texas Ethics Commission often finds itself in a tight spot, as the legislature ultimately controls its funding, resources and staff position. “They realize it’s the hand that feeds them,” he said.

Texas Ethics Commissioner Paul Hobby, who was appointed by the House speaker in December, said the commission has been involved in high-profile ethics cases.

Like this one: in 2010 Rep. Kino Flores (D-Palmview) failed to disclose income on his financial disclosure reports, which are filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, prompting an investigation by the county district attorney. Flores was convicted by a jury and sentenced to five years probation. The Ethics Commission did not act until months later when it issued a $700 fine.

Hobby concedes that the commissioners and staff must work within certain limits. “Look at the budget, look at the statute,” he said, “and tell me how it can be anything but an ankle biter.”

Increasing Workload, Inadequate Resources

The Delaware Public Integrity Commission — a two-person operation — enforces ethics rules for 48,000 people on the state level. It also oversees 50 local governments in the state. With an annual operating budget of $30,600, Janet Wright, the commission’s counsel, said that works out to “less than a penny a person.”

“I do not know any state agency that is doing their job at that amount,” she said.

The Public Integrity Commission’s responsibilities include regulating the ethics code for the executive branch, overseeing financial disclosure filings and lobbying reports, and enforcing the anti-double dipping law, which prevents state and local government employees who also hold elected positions from receiving double compensation from the state.

This year, the Delaware Legislature passed legislation that requires the creation of a new lobbyist database. It also requires lobbyists to disclose the bill number on which they are lobbying. It’s an improvement for lobbying disclosure — but Wright said it will likely create additional work, such as training some 400 lobbyists on how to use the new system, for an already strained agency.

“They did ask me, ‘Would it help if you had more people?’ It certainly would,” she said. “But we didn’t get that.”

Wright said the commission has experienced an increase in responsibility and jurisdiction every year since its creation in 1991; meanwhile, the budget has been cut repeatedly. In 2008, which was economically a bad year for the state, the panel suffered a 17 percent decrease in its operating budget, leaving it with $32,100.

Ethics commissions, like many state agencies, have in recent years often found themselves strapped for cash due to tough economic times. For smaller commissions that are already understaffed and underfunded, the cuts are especially damaging. In South Carolina, the State Ethics Commission had a budget of $725,000 in 1999; now, it’s at less than $284,000. The Oklahoma Ethics Commission only has one investigator and one attorney among its five-person staff, which, according to executive director Marilyn Hughes, is not enough. The commission has requested funding for a 10-person staff every year since 1991, but has never been larger than seven people.

“Historically, the legislature just hasn’t funded it,” Hughes said. Although the commission’s current budget is about $680,000, which is the largest it’s been in three years, that amount is still down from its highest point of $750,000 before 2008.

Hughes said there is “a lot of fear” associated with the commission’s ability to levy fines and penalties, but since it is a constitutionally-established agency, legislators can’t eliminate it entirely; instead, she said, they low-ball it.

In Colorado, critics say, the lack of resources creates a chilling effect on the complaint process itself. Feldman said when citizens file a complaint, they have to pursue it on their own, as the commission does not have a large enough staff to provide the legal support. She said she did not know of any state that places such a burden on the complainant.

The Pennsylvania Commission, admittedly a much larger agency than its counterparts in Colorado and Oklahoma, suffered a 25 percent decrease in its funding, from $2.1 million in 2007 to about $1.7 million this year. Its staff has been reduced from 25 to 18 employees.

“There are things we are doing differently,” Contino said of the budget constraints. “We can’t invest in every case anymore.” For example, he said, the commission must now take geographical location into account. If investigating an allegation requires a four-hour drive to a distant corner of the state, they may choose not to pursue the case.

Carol Carson, executive director of Connecticut’s Office of State Ethics, said it is always a challenge to maintain the resources necessary to carry out its mandate.

“A lot of that is driven by the economy,” Carson said. “But in addition to that, watchdog agencies tend to get money when there is a scandal. When things go smoothly, it looks like they have a lot of money, [so governments say] let’s take it away from them.”

Last year, Connecticut Governor Daniel Molloy consolidated nine agencies, including Carson’s office, into one umbrella organization — the Office of Governmental Accountability. The restructuring was billed as a way to streamline state government and save the state money. It also reduced Carson’s staff from 18 to 13 members; she lost one of two investigators and its only auditor.

The Office of State Ethics, created in 2005, is one of the stronger enforcement bodies in the country, responsible for the disclosure of lobbying activity and personal finances, investigating potential violations, and enforcing the ethics code. It can — and does — initiate investigations, impose penalties, and audit reports. On the State Integrity Investigation, Connecticut scored a 90 percent in the category of ethics enforcement.

But as a result of the merger, Carson said there were statute-mandated tasks that simply did not get done. The office reduced the number of audits of lobbying reports by 75 percent — it typically performs at least 40, but this year will only conduct 10.

The Sun Sets on Reform

In Texas, attorney Fred Lewis acknowledged that the weakness of the state’s ethics commission stems in part from budget problems — but, ultimately, he said, the agency has to make substantial changes to its structure to be truly effective. “If they had all the money in the world, it wouldn’t matter,” Lewis said, “unless they had the structure — an enforcement division — to do proper investigations.” Earlier this year, the Texas Ethics Commission went through “sunset review,” a process that modifies or weeds out inefficient government agencies. In a May 2012 report, Sunset Advisory Commission staff wrote that the agency “unnecessarily focuses on minor reporting infractions” and recommended an overhaul of enforcement structure.

But when it came time for the Sunset Commission, a 12-member board that consists of 10 state lawmakers and two civilians, to approve those recommendations, good government advocates claim it didn’t go far enough. The Commission adopted several of the report’s suggestions, but other demands — like finding new sources of funding, putting disclosures online, or creating an enforcement arm — were ignored.

“The failure to enact bolder reforms leaves the Ethics Commission a largely toothless observer of a political system awash in cash and flush with potential conflicts of interest,” stated a San Antonio Express-News editorial.

The sunset recommendations will be turned into legislation for the 2013 session. But Texans for Public Justice’s McDonald said he is not optimistic that any substantial changes to the Ethics Commission will be made. “The mood in the legislature is that they don’t like the Ethics Commission,” McDonald said. “They want it to go away.”

Florida reforms targeted by 'good government' group

Florida,United States — 2012-07-31T12:19:13-04:00

Citing the Center for Public Integrity’s States of Disclosure project and State Integrity Investigation as a basis for reform, the nonpartisan research group Integrity Florida has issued a report calling for stronger financial disclosure requirements in the Sunshine State.

Among the report’s recommendations: requiring Florida state officials to fill out more detailed financial disclosure forms and making that information available online in a searchable database format.

Florida ranked 26^th – a grade of D – on the 2009 release of States of Disclosure, a state-by-state comparison of legislative financial disclosure laws. To improve its standing, Integrity Florida calls for adopting requirements similar to Louisiana, which dramatically raised its ranking all the way to number one in the 2009 States of Disclosure analysis. The Bayou State required all lawmakers to disclose a wide range of financial assets, including outside income, investments, and real property holdings. Louisiana had ranked 44th in a previous States of Disclosure analysis from 2006.

“When we compared the financial disclosure for the two states, it was clear that Louisiana has the best form in the country and Florida should adopt it,” said Dan Krassner, Integrity Florida’s executive director.

The group’s report also stresses easy public access to the information, noting that 27 states have put financial disclosure information online, according to the State Integrity Investigation, a 50-state analysis of government accountability measures. Florida’s disclosure data is not available online.

“Integrity Florida realized that it’s easy to put these forms online,” Krassner said, explaining that the nonprofit group was able to upload and share more than 600 financial disclosure documents at virtually no cost.

In analyzing legislators’ financial disclosure documents for the 2012 session, Integrity Florida found that 11 legislators worked for lobbying firms, 12 legislators disclosed potential conflicts of interest on votes, and more than 4,000 public officials and employees failed to file their financial disclosure statement.

The lack of online disclosure also affected Florida’s standing on the State Integrity Investigation, particularly in the categories of legislative accountability and executive accountability. The Sunshine State received a C- and ranked 18^th overall.

But Krassner said he is hopeful that momentum is building in Florida for ethics reform, crediting States of Disclosure and the State Integrity Investigation for providing clear steps for action.

“Governors are constantly competing with each other, and so are legislators between the states,” he said. “Having the comparison by the Center for Public Integrity of Florida’s disclosure versus other states means our officials can see specifically what needs to be done to be number one in the country.”

Florida State Senator Don Gaetz (R-Niceville), the incoming Senate President, said he expects ethics legislation will be proposed next year, and noted that he will be looking carefully at the new report.

“I’ve made raising the ethical standard at the state and local level a preeminent concern of mine,” Gaetz said.

Integrity Florida hopes to work with reform-minded lawmakers to push reform in the 2013 legislative session, which begins in January.

Michigan Dems cite Integrity Investigation in calling for probe

2012-07-20T07:19:56-04:00

Michigan House Democrats have cited the state’s failing grade from the State Integrity Investigation in a resolution calling for investigation of alleged election irregularities.

“A recent report by the State Integrity Investigation ranked Michigan’s government 43^rd in the country in terms of accountability and risk of corruption,” stated the resolution, issued earlier this week. “The report card gave Michigan an ‘F’ grade in areas like campaign finance and legislative accountability among other areas.”

Michigan also received F’s in the categories of executive accountability, judicial accountability, civil service management, lobbying disclosure, pension fund management, ethics enforcement, insurance commission, and redistricting. It received a single A grade for internal auditing.

Overall, Michigan received an F and a score of 58 percent on the State Integrity Investigation.

The resolution came about as the result of an alarming report just issued by Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth. The report alleged that state Rep. Roy Schmidt (R-Grand Rapids) and House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) schemed to find a non-viable candidate to run against Schmidt in the 2012 election. Originally elected in 2008 as a Democrat, Rep. Schmidt switched parties just before the May filing deadline, citing “extreme Democrat political bosses” who were unwilling to listen to his ideas.

Forsyth, a Republican, detailed collusion between Schmidt and Bolger to “undermine the election and to perpetrate a ‘fraud’ on the electorate,” by convincing a family friend of the Schmidt family — with an original offer of $450 — to run as the Democratic opponent.

The family friend, 22-year-old Matthew Mojak, soon withdrew from the race after facing intense media scrutiny on the merits of his candidacy. According to Forsyth’s report, Schmidt then offered a total of $2,000 from his campaign funds to Mojak, as a means of enticing him to remain on the ballot, and Schmidt’s son, Ryan, for helping recruit Mojak. No money was exchanged. The report concluded that Schmidt and Bolger’s actions were completely legal; there is no state law prohibiting such actions. However, Forsyth did suggest that Schmidt “attempted to improperly use campaign contributions” for the $2,000 offer.

The Secretary of State’s office is charged with enforcing campaign finance laws. Gisgie Gendreau, communications director for the Michigan Department of State, said the department has not yet received any information from the prosecutor’s office; if it does, officials there will decide whether to pursue an investigation.

“The report shows that the law was followed,” said Ari Adler, press secretary for House Speaker Bolger. Adler said that the Speaker does “regret that he and some others got pulled into political gamesmanship.”

The resolution, offered by House Democratic Leader Richard Hammel, requests that the GOP-controlled House Standing Committee on Oversight, Reform, and Ethics conduct an investigation of any ethics misconduct, violation, or misuse of resources by members and staff in the filing for Schmidt’s 76^th House District.

“Bolger and Schmidt clearly worked together to attempt to cheat the people of Grand Rapids out of a fair election,” Hammel stated in a press release. “What they did constituted an all-out assault on the sanctity of democracy, and we can’t allow them to just get away with their schemes.”

Schmidt has since acknowledged that his actions were inappropriate. “It was a dumb political decision and from day one, it started to unravel,” he told MLive.com. “I knew it was wrong.” Schmidt did not respond to an inquiry by the Center.

As budget vote looms, California GOP demands transparency

California,United States — 2012-06-15T09:18:03-04:00

As the California legislature gears up to vote on the state budget, Republicans are demanding greater transparency in the process, citing a C- grade for the budgeting process from the State Integrity Investigation. California ranked 4^th out of all 50 states overall with a grade of B-.

On Monday, Republicans called for a 48-hour public review of the budget plan, allowing time for citizens to voice their concerns to representatives before it goes to a vote. Lawmakers face a constitutional deadline to approve a budget for the new fiscal year by this Friday; the fiscal year kicks off July 1. California Democrats control both legislative chambers, as well as the governor’s office.

“While Democrats talk about openness and accountability, all we have seen from them are smoke-filled rooms and back-room deals, shutting out taxpayers and the news media,” Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway (R-Tulare) stated in a press release. “Budgets thrown together behind closed doors or passed in the middle of the night are one of the main reasons why California is facing chronic deficits today.”

Sabrina Lockhart, communications director for Assembly Leader Conway, said that California’s grades on the State Integrity Investigation “bolstered our opinion that more transparency is needed,” but she also noted that Republicans have sought open government legislation for years.

Among their proposals: Bills to increase legislative transparency, eliminate late-night legislative sessions and promote an open and honest budget process.

On its corruption risk scorecard, California earned only a 31 percent for the question, “Can citizens access the state budgetary process?” One source referred to the public hearings as “a kabuki theater,” with the major decisions being made by legislative leaders behind closed doors.

John Vigna, press secretary for Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles), noted that the Legislature has held more than 75 hearings on the budget, including a meeting this week to review the proposed budget in its entirety. “The Speaker is committed to approving a balanced, on-time budget by our June 15 constitutional deadline, and we continue to work towards that goal,” Vigna said in a statement.

State Integrity Investigation provides 'roadmap' for ethics reform

Florida,United States — 2012-07-31T12:18:49-04:00

A Florida research group released a report yesterday on how to improve the state’s ethics laws, using results from the State Integrity Investigation as a basis for reform. The Sunshine State ranked 18^th out of 50 states in the investigation, with an overall grade of C-.

Integrity Florida, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes integrity and exposes corruption in state government, has previously held presentations around the state to share the conclusions of the State Integrity Investigation’s corruption risk scorecard for the Sunshine State. The group’s new report, “Corruption Risk Report: Florida Ethics Laws,” identifies key policy changes — such as increasing penalties for ethics violations and creating a corruption report hotline — that could help the state move towards an A grade.

“Integrity Florida is using State Integrity Investigation results as a roadmap to focus our state-level research projects and as a scorecard to measure policy results,” the report states.

Among the reform recommendations is a multi-faceted plan to improve ethics enforcement, a category in which Florida failed on its risk scorecard, particularly by giving the ethics commission authority to self-initiate investigations.

Dan Krassner, Integrity Florida’s executive director, said the new report was timed to precede the Florida Commission on Ethics’ June 15 meeting — a meeting at which the commission will set its priorities for the 2013 legislative session. The Commission has continuously sought additional resources and greater power, and Krassner said he hopes the commission will include the authority to self-initiate investigations as part of its agenda.

Integrity Florida has also met with senior members of Governor Rick Scott’s staff, who received an advanced copy of the group’s report.

Lane Wright, press secretary for Gov. Scott, said he could not comment on specifics in the Integrity Florida report, but maintained that Florida is among the nation’s leaders in open government.

Krassner said there is a grassroots demand for ethics reform in Florida, which he expects will continue, especially through this year’s election. “Voters are making it known — in more ways than they have in the past — that corruption is a problem we can’t stand for any longer,” he said.

The state of open records laws: Access denied

2013-03-18T14:02:38-04:00

Early last month, lawmakers in Iowa completed work on a new open records statute. Senate File 430 creates the Iowa Public Information Board, a nine-member commission charged with enforcing the state’s open records and meetings laws.

For good government advocates in the Hawkeye State, the new legislation was cause for celebration — sort of.

Indeed, there were smiles all around as Gov. Terry Branstad signed the law on May 3 in the ornate Capitol Building, surrounded by lawmakers and journalists — many of whom spent six years on the effort. And the law is undoubtedly a victory of sorts for open government in the state, where enforcement was spotty at best, divided among several local and state entities. If a citizen’s request for information was denied, the only option was to sue — a time-consuming and costly course of action. Now, the Board can investigate complaints and bring them to court on citizens’ behalf.

It all sounds good — except for the fine print. Tacked on to the bill is an amendment that exempts “tentative, preliminary, draft, speculative, or research material” from Iowa’s open records law. Translation: a document that is part of the policy making process can be held from public view. Such language was not part of Iowa’s original open records law, enacted in 1967, and its inclusion now is troubling to some. “You can use the drafts to learn things,” said Lyle Muller, executive director of the Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news service. “I think they are valuable. They give you an idea of what the early ideas were that were rejected.”

The governor’s office, in working with the Iowa Newspaper Association, inserted the amendment, hoping it would be enough of an olive branch to finally pass the bill after six years of opposition from local governments and organizations like the Iowa League of Cities. Chris Mudge, executive director of the Iowa Newspaper Association, said her group agreed to support a preliminary draft exemption only with an effective enforcement board in place. Her goal, she said, was to make sure the exemption remained as narrow as possible.

But that’s not the only exemption. The new board’s jurisdiction also does not apply to “the judicial or legislative branches of state government or any entity, officer, or employee of those branches, or over the governor or the office of the governor.” That leaves state agencies and local governments, mostly.

Admittedly, that’s a lot not to include. When Branstad was asked about the exemptions at the bill signing, he cited constitutional provisions that allow the legislature, the judiciary and the governor’s office to remain exempt. He did add, however, that “we want to set a good example of transparency in this office.”

Mudge admitted the final bill is not ideal. But she said she hopes that an effective enforcement board for the open records law — a rare feature among states — will make the compromises worthwhile.

“Sometimes,” she said, “you forgo the perfect for the possible.”

The good news, bad news tale from Des Moines is hardly unusual. Every state theoretically gives citizens the right to access government information. But an analysis of public records policies by the State Integrity Investigation reveals that, in state after state, the laws are riddled with exemptions and loopholes that often impede the public’s right to know rather than improve upon it.

Some states, like Iowa, exclude entire branches of government. Others protect individual lawmakers’ records and inter-office communications. Some laws are filled with hundreds of exceptions, buried in state codebooks to the point where it’s difficult to keep track of what the exceptions are and just how they got there.

It didn’t start out that way. Ken Bunting, executive director of the Missouri-based National Freedom of Information Coalition, a nonpartisan alliance of freedom of information advocates, journalists, lawyers and academics, said that most state open records laws started with a few — nine, ten, a dozen — exemptions. Several states adopted open records policies as early as the 1950s; many emerged in the post-Watergate era. Over time, the number of exemptions has grown, he said, undermining the presumption of openness.

“Getting access is more difficult than it should be,” Bunting said. “I blame some of that on the exemptions and their proliferation. But at the end of the day, it’s also about the attitudes of people in government.”

Hundreds of Exemptions and Counting

In Florida, the First Amendment Foundation, an open government nonprofit group, publishes a manual each year on the state’s open records and meetings laws. In 1985, the first year the report was published, there were 250 exemptions. Today, there are more than 1,000.

“At first it seemed really outrageous,” said Barbara Petersen, director of the Foundation and a long-time open government advocate. “But when you stop and think about the rationale, it actually benefits the people wanting access.”

Florida’s constitution states that the government can only deny access to a document if there is a specific statutory exemption, and that the exemption “shall be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose.”

In other words, the government needs to cite a reason — one specifically written in law — for denying access. Petersen said she prefers the Florida system where, ultimately, the burden is on the government to cite the exemption and explain why a request was denied.

“There’s a presumption for openness in Florida,” she said.

That’s not to say that out of 1,000 exemptions there aren’t some that are troubling to Petersen and her fellow open-government advocates. In 2011, the state carved out an exemption that mandates the withholding of video, audio, or photographs depicting the “killing of a person” except to family members. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Rachel Burgin, R-Riverview, was intended to protect families’ privacy. But Petersen said she vigorously fought this exemption, as the law also includes events leading up to and following the killing, which could potentially cover up misconduct of law enforcement officials.

The uptick in exemptions hasn’t been lost on Florida journalists. “Ten years ago, it was a lot more open than it is now,” said Dan Christensen, founding editor of the Broward Bulldog and former reporter for the The Miami Herald. He said the sheer number of exemptions in the law is telling.

“It’s better than what I hear in other states,” Christensen said. “But we’re just the best of a terrible lot.”

The Florida law, at least, requires a stand-alone bill whenever an exemption is created. “It makes it much easier to keep your eye on what they are trying to do,” Petersen said.

That’s not always the case elsewhere.

In Vermont, there are 40 exemptions clearly laid out under the state’s open records statute, which was originally passed in 1975. But that only represents a fraction of the state’s current exemptions. The balance — a number that’s been hard for journalists, lawmakers, and open government advocates to even pin down — are sprinkled throughout the entire state code. In 2007, a legislative committee identified a total of 206 exemptions. In the years since, even more have been identified — a few have been added, too — and today that number sits at around 260.

Among those discovered: exemptions for reports on air contaminant sources, locations of endangered species, criminal records of school employees, maple products dealers and processors, and the subscription list of Vermont Life magazine.

“Until recently, they’ve used any and all exemptions,” said Mike Donoghue, longtime newspaper reporter and executive director of the Vermont Press Association. “Out of the 260, they can always find something that they will try to apply to a records request.”

That was the case in 2011 when the Burlington Free Press requested information on state pensions to determine the highest-paid retirees in the state. The Treasurer’s Office initially maintained that individual pensions were exempt from the open records law under privacy protection. The paper appealed the denial and eventually won. “Up to your request we had not given out this information to people,” wrote state Treasurer Beth Pearce to the Free Press. The Treasurer’s Office did, however, notify the top 100 pensioners in the state, who were the subject of the Free Press’ investigative report, that the information was now considered public record.

In 2011, the legislature created a Public Records Study Committee — three members of the House and three from the Senate — which is meeting over the course of three years to review the more than 200 exemptions. The committee released its first report in January, which covered exemptions for tax records, health records, personal information, and university research. Among its conclusions: tax adjustment records should be made public, but academic research should not — however, it suggested a special carve-out for access to information on the treatment of research animals.

The committee proposed a public records bill this past session based on its findings to amend or eliminate some exemptions, but the measure never went anywhere. The bill was sent to the House Committee on Government Operations, chaired by Rep. Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor, who also sits on the Public Records Study Committee and co-sponsored the bill. Mike O’Grady, legislative counsel, said the House Committee was grappling with redistricting for most of the session and was unable to turn its attention to the public records proposal.

So far, the committee has reviewed about 63 exemptions. It is expected to resume meeting this summer.

Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, said most people, including the legislators involved in the study, are frustrated by the enormity of the task. “There’s an irony in this,” Gilbert said. “The core problem is one that the legislature has created by writing all these exemptions over the years.”

A ‘Black Hole’

Charles Davis, former executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said it’s not always the number of exemptions that are troubling. He too considers Florida’s open records system to be among the country’s best — the exemptions are so specific that a record is public unless explicitly stated otherwise. What concerns him more are the states that “write exemptions so broad you can drive a truck through them.”

Among the more common — and arguably the most abused — is the “deliberative process” exemption, similar to the provision that was inserted into Iowa’s new open records bill, that allows an “out” for documents that are part of the back-and-forth of policy-making.

It’s common for states to provide such exceptions, and they can be applied — or misapplied — in any number of ways. In Illinois, any document or record in which “opinions are expressed” can be exempt. Virginia’s open records law protects “working papers.” Wyoming legislators exempted draft legislation and communication with staff and constituents up until a bill is introduced. Legislators see these exemptions as a protection of the deliberative process, as a way to shield the public from ideas that are not yet fully formed and allow for frank and open debate.

“It’s almost impossible to draw a statute that fits every situation” said Clifton A. “Chip” Woodrum, an attorney who served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1980 to 2004. Woodrum said it is important for the public to have access to its government, but raised a question about when it is appropriate to make certain documents public.

“[Legislators] need some time to go through the process of doing your own fact-finding, doing your own analysis, reaching your own conclusions,” he said.

But advocates of public access worry about the potentially dangerous reach of such exclusions.

“There’s fear that it could become this black hole that officials could throw all sorts of information in and claim that it’s protected by deliberative privilege,” said Kathleen Richardson, executive secretary of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council.

For example, Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law exempts records that are part of “internal, predecisional deliberations,” including such deliberations that are part of legislative proposals, amendments, and budget recommendations.

The exemption is “designed so that agencies properly have the space to be able to discuss policies and decisions,” said Terry Mutchler, executive director of Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records. “You need to have an open discussion, a frank discussion, as you are making a decision.”

But the exemption is often misapplied, which Mutchler said is easy to do because of the vague language used in the provision.

“The problem is when everything is stamped as predecisional,” she said. “That’s not good.”

Melissa Melewsky of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said the predecisional exemption is one of the most frequently cited exemptions when requests are denied, and that it is often cited alongside the noncriminal investigation exemption, including notes, reports, correspondence, and records that may reveal an investigation’s progress. “This has a really negative impact depending on how broadly the agencies interpret these exemptions,” Melewsky said.

In one example, the Pennsylvania Department of Education denied reporters access to a 2010 and 2011 forensic audit of the state’s assessment skills test, which was conducted by a contractor in response to allegations of widespread cheating in Pennsylvania schools. The Philadelphia Public School Notebook, the news agency that requested the documents, appealed the denial, which cited predecisional deliberations and noncriminal investigation exemptions. But the Office of Open Records ultimately upheld the decision — “records between an agency and an entity under contract with an agency regarding a proposed future course of action are exempt from disclosure as internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency.”

Benjamin Herold, an education reporter with the Notebook who covered the ongoing probe of alleged cheating, said the publication felt there was compelling public interest in making the documents available. “It’s tough to gauge or hold accountable the decisions of the Department of Education because that information is not available to the public,” Herold said.

Overall, Mutchler said she believes Pennsylvania has a strong system. Like Florida, Pennsylvania’s law places the burden on government to explain denials for requests. But it’s the few exemptions that can make the law seem “archaic” to some open-records advocates.

For example, many states provide protection for records that are part of ongoing criminal investigations. But Mutchler said that Pennsylvania is one of a few states, if not the only one, that allows those documents to remain shielded from the public forever.

Leaving Out the Legislature

In February, the Oklahoma Senate passed a controversial “Personhood Amendment,” which would grant embryos full rights from the moment of conception. It was expected to sail through the Republican-dominated House, but never made it that far. In April, Oklahoma House Republicans met privately in a caucus before the bill reached the House floor and killed it.

There is no way to find out how Republican leaders voted in the caucus because the entire legislature is exempt from the state’s open records and open meetings laws.

Oklahoma does not give that same level of protection to any other entity in the state. And there’s a reason that such secrecy is not allowed elsewhere in the state, said Joey Senat, professor of communications at Oklahoma State University: “it breeds corruption, incompetency, and inefficiency.”

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Oregon provide that sort of sweeping exemption for the legislature in law. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the legislature there is exempt from state open records law because it’s not a state agency. And still other states provide an exemption for individual legislators (like Michigan), while other states exempt lawmakers’ working papers (South Carolina and Virginia) and certain types of correspondence (New Jersey and North Carolina).

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee, called the legislature exemption a “monumentally arrogant” move. “Legislators by and large want everything to be public, except what they do,” she said.

Oklahoma state Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, proposed a bill this session to remove the legislature’s exemption. But he said it was challenging to convince fellow lawmakers of the bill’s benefits.

“It wasn’t well-received by legislators who have become accustomed to a closed door, and the protection that it affords them,” Murphey said. The initiative was ultimately killed in March after a House committee hearing.

A public opinion poll revealed that a majority of Oklahoma voters strongly supported including the legislature under the state’s open record laws. Bunting of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, however, said that while polls often reveal significant majorities in favor of access, public support of open government issues is generally passive.

“It is not an issue that drives people to the ballot box, not a front burner issue,” he said. “It’s taken for granted up and until there is some bit of government information that you need to know.”

And there are practical political considerations as well. Senat of Oklahoma State said the legislature in the Sooner State exempted itself from the open records law when it was first introduced in 1985. It was the only way the bill would pass. “If it had included the legislature, the powers that be would’ve said ‘no,’” he said.

But now, Senat said, the exemption allows special interest groups to exert control out of the public eye. He said Murphey’s bill failed in part because lawmakers did not want to disclose those relationships and communications.

Davis, now an associate professor at the Missouri School of Journalism, said he could understand exemptions from a lawmaker’s perspective. “They claim government will be more efficient, run better, be more innovative,” he said. “But really, it’s because they don’t want to [be subject to open records laws] and they’re afraid of public scrutiny. These people should put on their office clothes and go to work. They work for us.”

Iowa governor cites State Integrity Investigation at bill signing

Iowa,United States — 2012-05-08T15:33:21-04:00

Iowa’s only F grade on the State Integrity Investigation was in the category of public access to information, partly due to a lack of strong enforcement measures.

But Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill last week that would create the Iowa Public Information Board, a nine-member commission that will oversee and enforce the state’s open records laws. The governor noted that the lack of enforcement was highlighted by the State Integrity Investigation and affected Iowa’s overall grade. Iowa ranked 7^th among the 50 states and earned an overall grade of C+.

“Hopefully this will move us up from [C+] to a better grade,” Branstad said at the signing on May 3.

On the scorecard’s public access information section, Iowa received low marks on questions about whether citizens could easily resolve appeals when requests are denied and whether there is an agency that effectively monitors the laws, initiates investigations, and imposes penalties on offenders.

Branstad hailed the creation of the new board as an “important and significant step forward” for government transparency and accountability. The board, which will consist of local advocates and journalists, will not only have the authority to hear complaints and negotiate settlements, but levy fines and order corrective action if necessary. Branstad said the board could be ready to operate July 1.

Good government advocates and journalists in Iowa applaud the new legislation, but also point out that the board would not have authority over the governor’s office, legislature, or judiciary. Most of its work, therefore, will involve state agencies of the executive branch.

State Integrity Investigation cited in Rhode Island flap

Rhode Island,United States — 2012-05-04T06:02:57-04:00

Rhode Island garnered a respectable ninth in the nation ranking from the State Integrity Investigation in late March, but that was before elimination of the state’s internal auditing agency was proposed as part of the governor’s budget.

Rhode Island’s Chief Auditor, H. Chris Der Vartanian, announced his resignation Wednesday in the wake of Gov. Lincoln Chafee’s plan to cut the Bureau of Audits, citing the state’s ranking as a reason to keep the independent auditing arm in place.

“Ironically, this proposed elimination comes at a time when the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations categorized the Bureau as one of the highest performing state internal audit agencies in the country and one of the major factors leading to the state of Rhode Island achieving a ranking of [9^th] in the nation in terms of preventing corruption,” Der Vartanian wrote in a resignation letter to Gov. Chafee and Richard Licht, the director of administration.

Rhode Island received a B+ in internal auditing on its corruption risk scorecard. It received its highest grade, an A, for redistricting, and scored its lowest, an F, on state civil service management. The state’s overall grade was C.

Der Vartanian, who worked in state government for 21 years, said he thought it was important for public officials to review the report card to determine what policies need improvement.

The proposed restructuring that caused the controversy would transfer the functions of the Bureau of Audits to a different administrative division in the executive branch — one directly overseen by the governor’s office. Der Vartanian said it is unclear how the auditing functions would be performed under the new plan and he is concerned about the objectivity and independence of future audits if the Governor’s budget is approved. The governor’s blueprint, announced in January, is currently being deliberated in the House and Senate Finance Committees, and will be voted on in June.

Der Vartanian said he will meet with the governor’s chief-of-staff this Friday, his last day in office, to go over the duties and functions of the bureau.

State Integrity Investigation cited in New York redistricting spat

New York,United States — 2012-04-27T15:31:20-04:00

Citing the state’s F grade for redistricting in the State Integrity Investigation, Common Cause/NY filed an amicus brief earlier this week supporting a challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s newly-drawn 63^rd Senate district.

“The entire process was tremendously opaque,” said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause/NY. “It is a very discouraging for the average citizen to see the state carved up in districts as a result of political negotiations behind closed doors.”

The Common Cause brief supports a lawsuit brought by New York Senate Democrats who claim that Senate Republicans, currently the majority, manipulated the state constitution’s population counting formula – used every 10 years to determine the size of the Senate – to their advantage. The lawsuit alleges that Senate Republicans applied two different methods of calculating census growth in different counties, allowing them to manipulate the numbers to give them an extra seat in Republican upstate New York.

The lawsuit was dismissed by the state Supreme Court on April 13. The court ruled that increasing the size of the state Senate was not unconstitutional, but found the use of different counting methods “disturbing.” A spokesman for Senate Republicans said “we were required to add a 63^rd seat to comply with the Constitution.” Democrats appealed to the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, and arguments are set for today.

The Common Cause complaint takes issue not with the size of the state Senate, but with the process used for making the decision to expand – “without a scintilla of transparency or accountability,” as stated in the amicus brief. The State Integrity Investigation was cited to bolster the advocacy group’s argument that the New York process took place behind closed doors, with little public input.

“We hope there will be clear standard that will be articulated by the court that will prevent blatant political manipulation of the size of senate in the future,” Lerner said.

The redistricting section of the State Integrity Investigation’s corruption risk scorecards asked questions on whether the state held public meetings or hearings where citizens could provide input on new district maps, whether the state accepted redistricting plans from the public, and whether the state made redistricting information available online.

The State Integrity Investigation found New York to be lacking in those areas. State Integrity Investigation reporter David King wrote that the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR) held meetings around the state and invited public commentary, but that the task force is mostly considered a “dog and pony show.” Lines are typically drawn by legislative leaders in backroom deals, King wrote, and new maps are decided upon before LATFOR even meets.

The 63-seat map was signed into law on March 15 by Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is named as the defendant in the lawsuit, along with the state Senate and Assembly.

Lerner said she expects a decision as early as next week. If the court rules in favor of the Democrats, the current map will be invalidated and the Senate will have to recalculate the number of districts.

New York ranked 36^th among the 50 states overall in the State Integrity Investigation and received a grade of D.

Florida group uses State Integrity Investigation to push reform

Florida,United States — 2012-04-24T09:23:10-04:00

Open government advocates in Florida are using results from the State Integrity Investigation to push for grassroots ethics reform. The Sunshine State received a C- on its corruption risk scorecard, ranking it 18^th among the states.

Dan Krassner, executive director of Integrity Florida, said the project’s scorecards provide an easy roadmap for reform, with 330 specific policy questions and measurable outcomes.

“We looked at where our state scored the lowest,” said Krassner, who noted that Florida received its only F grade for ethics enforcement agencies.

Florida is one of about 30 states where the ethics commission is unable to self-start investigations; commissioners can only investigate citizens’ complaints. But Integrity Florida, a group that aims to promote accountability in government and expose corruption, is pushing for changes that would allow the commission to initiate its own probes.

“That is a direct response to the State Integrity Investigation,” Krassner said. “Our organization is following up with state-level research to pass that policy reform next legislative session.”

Integrity Florida, which launched in late March, aims to inspire reform by engaging with ethics organizations and government officials, while also producing reports on potential corruption risks in the state. A report to be released this week will highlight the lack of transparency at Florida’s economic development agency.

On Saturday, the group presented the Florida corruption risk scorecard to the local League of Women Voters chapter to highlight the state’s shortcomings. Krassner said Integrity Florida plans to replicate those meetings throughout the state.

In addition to the failing grade for ethics enforcement, Florida received D- grades for political financing, judicial accountability, and state civil service management, D’s for lobbying disclosure and pension fund management, and a D+ for public access to information. The state received two A grades — for internal auditing and redistricting.

The legislative session ended in March, but Integrity Florida plans to meet with elected officials and reform advocates throughout the summer to build a coalition of supporters.

Maine governor, legislators use 'F' grade as opportunity to push reform

Maine,United States — 2012-04-13T10:42:35-04:00

In the aftermath of receiving an F grade on the State Integrity Investigation for corruption risk, Maine’s governor and state leaders plan to take legislative action. Maine ranks 46^thamong the 50 states.

Gov. Paul LePage said in a statement that his office has been reviewing data from the State Integrity Investigation and already introduced a bill earlier this year to improve the state’s lax financial disclosure requirements. The proposed legislation calls for legislators and executive branch officials to report whether their outside private organizations received state contracts.

“This is the direction we need to move in to improve Maine’s grade,” LePage said. “It’s clear that many states struggle with this issue. However, it is an issue that I will continue to work on improving on behalf of the Maine taxpayer.” The bill has been approved in committee, but has not yet reached the Legislature for a vote.

As reported in the State Integrity Investigation, the state doled out millions — nearly $253 million between 2003 and 2010 — to organizations affiliated with lawmakers and public officials. None of that information was disclosed, nor was it required to be.

Maine failed nine categories on its corruption risk scorecard: public access to information, executive accountability, legislative accountability, civil service management, lobbying disclosure, pension fund management, ethics enforcement agencies, insurance commissions, and redistricting. The state received a D+ in political financing and judicial accountability, a C- for budget process and procurement, and a lone A for internal auditing.

Meanwhile, the House Democratic Leader, Rep. Emily Cain (D-Orono), also reacted to the report card, and told the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting that it “may make sense to have some kind of bipartisan task force” to look at the report and receive feedback from the public and experts.

Jodi Quintero, a spokeswoman for House Democrats, said Cain is working with legislative leaders now to put together a bipartisan committee, but lawmakers have yet to propose their own ethics reform bill.

Maine Republicans control both the House and Senate, as well as the governor’s office.

Delaware lawmakers move to address low grade from State Integrity Investigation

Delaware,United States — 2012-07-17T12:12:35-04:00

Delaware lawmakers have launched a new legislative effort designed in part to improve the C- grade the state received on lobbying disclosure from the State Integrity Investigation. The First State’s grade ranked it 22^ndamong the 50 states in that category.

The bill would require lobbyists to disclose the number of each bill or resolution on which they lobbied. The measure also calls for electronic filing of expenditures and registration forms by lobbyists, and requires the state’s Public Integrity Commission to post reports online “to allow public to review such information organized by bill, resolution, lobbyist, employer and subject.”

In a press conference Wednesday, Senate President Pro Tem Anthony DeLuca (D-Varlano), called the proposed legislation a “big step” for public accessibility.

“If you look overall at what we’re trying to accomplish, and you look at the electronics involved in this and the fact that we’re going to be getting an updated system that the public can easily access, that is a major thing,” DeLuca said.

But the bill does not address several areas in which Delaware lost points in the State Integrity Investigation. Delaware lobbyists would still not be required to disclose their salary or overall compensation — only expenses related to food, travel, gifts and entertainment. And oversight would apparently not be affected. On a State Integrity Investigation scorecard question about effective monitoring of lobbying disclosure, Delaware scored only 16 percent.

The bill charges the state’s Public Integrity Commission with posting the lobbying disclosure forms online. Delaware received a D- in the category of ethics enforcement agencies, due in part to the lack of staff and resources for the two-person public integrity panel. John Flaherty, president of the Delaware Coalition for Open Government, said the new bill could burden the agency with the additional work.

“They’re gonna need more help,” Flaherty said.

Flaherty called the overall proposal a “blueprint for action,” but would like to see several additions, like a requirement for a cooling off period that would prohibit legislators from working as lobbyists for two years.

Gov. Jack Markell said he expects the “bill will help us earn a better grade and create more openness.” He also noted the state’s new open records law, which he ordered in October, would improve the state’s results; Delaware earned its other F grade for public access to information.

The lobbying bill is co-sponsored by members in both chambers of the General Assembly, including DeLuca and House Speaker Robert Gilligan (D-Sherwood Park). Democrats control both chambers and the governor’s office.

“There will be a lobbying bill passed this session,” Gilligan told the Wilmington News Journal. “That’s a fact.”

Ohio Democrats demand transparency task force in response to D grade

Ohio,United States — 2012-07-17T12:12:35-04:00

Citing the Buckeye State’s D grade from the State Integrity Investigation, Democratic legislators in Ohio have called for a bipartisan task force to review current ethics laws and consider new legislation to strengthen accountability and transparency.

“We have a responsibility to the people of Ohio and it is simply unacceptable for us to fail to ensure government is working for Ohioan’s best interest at all times, not for special interest or influences,” said Rep. Jay Goyal (D-Mansfield), in a press conference held Tuesday.

In a letter to legislative leaders, the House Democrats noted “great concern over the recent ethics report from the State Integrity Investigation.” Among the 14 categories on the state scorecard, they pointed out, Ohio only received two grades higher than a C-.

The state failed three categories: legislative accountability, lobbying disclosure and redistricting. Ohio also received D- grades for executive accountability and judicial accountability, D+ grades for pension fund management and insurance commissions and C- grades for public access to information, political financing, procurement and ethics enforcement.

Rep. Ted Celeste (D-Grandview Heights) said the grades are not something to be proud of, especially since the state received F’s in a few individual categories. “We should do everything we can to improve our efforts here,” he said.

In addition to its call for new legislation, the letter also asked for reconsideration of some earlier proposals. Celeste said House Democrats have previously put forth legislation that would address some of the gaps in Ohio’s ethics laws, but those bills have not received serious consideration. Celeste and his colleagues are calling for hearings on those measures, which include proposed new regulations on independent expenditures by corporations and unions and creation of a public financing system for judicial elections. Those hearings would be held when the legislature returns from spring recess.

Another bill would require that records of public-private partnerships, a growing trend in Ohio, be made available to the public. Rep. Matt Lundy (D-Elyria), who sponsored the bill, said these entities — like JobsOhio, a semi-private agency focused on economic development — spend state dollars but are not currently subject to the state’s open record laws

“It’s hard to keep track of where the money is going,” Lundy said. “If you can’t follow the dollars, you can’t keep track of accountability.”

The fate of the Democrats’ recommendations seems uncertain at best. A spokesman for the Republican House speaker, William Batchelder, told the Columbus Dispatch that the speaker takes transparency and accountability seriously, but questioned the “flawed methodology” of the State Integrity Investigation. The GOP controls both the state House and Senate, as well as the governor’s office.

Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, said he stands by the State Integrity Investigation’s methodology and reporting.

IMPACT: A call for ethics reform in South Carolina

South Carolina,United States — 2012-07-17T12:12:35-04:00

In response to South Carolina’s failing grade from the State Integrity Investigation, House Democrats there have proposed historic ethics reforms. South Carolina was ranked 45^th out of 50 states, with a score of 57 percent.

“It is time for South Carolina to get serious about ethics reform,” said Rep. Boyd Brown, (D-Winnsboro), in a press release that cited the investigation’s “scathing” assessment of South Carolina. “Corruption is plaguing our great state and it’s high time we do something about it. South Carolina is ripe for another ‘Operation Lost Trust’ and I refuse to stand idly by while that happens again.”

Operation Lost Trust, a vote buying scandal that involved more than two dozen lobbyists and lawmakers, sparked a major ethics overall in South Carolina in the early 1990s, severely restricting gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists.The new proposal includes term limits, a revamping of the State Ethics Commissions and a two-year ban on the revolving door between legislating and lobbying.

South Carolina’s scores on the State Integrity Investigation indicate the state has a variety of problems. Out of the 14 categories investigated in the project, South Carolina received an F in nine areas: public access to information, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, state budget processes, state civil service management, state pension fund management, ethics enforcement agencies and state insurance commission oversight.

The state received B grades for lobbying disclosure, procurement, and redistricting.

On Tuesday, a day after the release of the State Integrity Investigation, state Senator John Courson announced plans to meet with members of the legislative ethics committee and State Ethics Commission. Courson said he was stunned by South Carolina’s F grade, since he was involved in passing reforms in the state after the Operation Lost Trust scandal. “Other states have copied our laws as a model,” he said in a news report.

South Carolina Lt. Gov. Ken Ard was indicted earlier this month on seven ethics violations, including spending campaign money on personal items — like football tickets and a flat-screen television — and failing to disclose campaign expenses in the 2010 election. Ard resigned his post.

South Carolina received an overall grade of F from the State Integrity Investigation along with seven other states: North Dakota, Michigan, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia.

Grading the nation: How accountable is your state?

North Carolina,United States — 2013-01-14T12:26:27-05:00

The tales are sadly familiar to even the most casual observer of state politics.

In Georgia, more than 650 government employees accepted gifts from vendors doing business with the state in 2007 and 2008, clearly violating state ethics law. The last time the state issued a penalty on a vendor was 1999.

A North Carolina legislator sponsored and voted on a bill to loosen regulations on billboard construction, even though he co-owned five billboards in the state. When the ethics commission reviewed the case, it found no conflict; after all, the panel reasoned, the legislation would benefit all billboard owners in the state — not just the lawmaker who pushed for the bill.

Tennessee established its ethics commission six years ago, but has yet to issue a single ethics penalty. It’s almost impossible to know whether the oversight is effectively working, because complaints are not made available to the public.

A West Virginia governor borrowed a car from his local dealership to take it for a “test drive.” He kept the car for four years, during which the dealership won millions in state contracts.

When representatives of a biotech company took Montana legislators out to dinner, they neither registered as lobbyists nor reported the fact that they picked up the bill. They didn’t have to — the law only requires registration upon spending $2,400 during a legislative session. And in Maine, one state senator did not disclose $98 million in state contracts that went to an organization for which he served as executive director. The lack of disclosure was not an oversight; due to a loophole in state law, he was under no obligation to do so.

The stories go on and on. Open records laws with hundreds of exemptions. Crucial budgeting decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of power brokers. “Citizen” lawmakers voting on bills that would benefit them directly. Scores of legislators turning into lobbyists seemingly overnight. Disclosure laws without much disclosure. Ethics panels that haven’t met in years.

State officials make lofty promises when it comes to ethics in government. They tout the transparency of legislative processes, accessibility of records, and the openness of public meetings. But these efforts often fall short of providing any real transparency or legitimate hope of rooting out corruption.

That’s the depressing bottom line that emerges from the State Integrity Investigation, a first-of-its-kind, data-driven assessment of transparency, accountability and anti-corruption mechanisms in all 50 states. Not a single state — not one — earned an A grade from the months-long probe. Only five states earned a B grade: New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, California and Nebraska. Nineteen states got C’s and 18 received D’s. Eight states earned failing grades of 59 or below from the project, which is a collaboration of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International.

The F’s went to Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia.

What’s behind the dismal grades? Across the board, state ethics, open records and disclosure laws lack one key feature: teeth.

“It’s a terrible problem,” said Tim Potts, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Democracy Rising PA, which works to inspire citizen trust in government. “A good law isn’t worth anything if it’s not enforced.”

Some of the results of the State Integrity Investigation seem more than a little counterintuitive. New Jersey emerges at the top of the pack, a seemingly stunning ranking for a state with a reputation for dirty politics. And there are other surprises: Illinois, hardly a beacon of clean governmental in recent years, comes in at a respectable number 10. Louisiana ranks 15th.

Many of the states at the bottom of the rankings, meanwhile, are sparsely-populated Western or Plains states like Idaho (40th), Wyoming (48th) and the Dakotas (North Dakota is number 43 and South Dakota comes in at 49). There, libertarianism roots, a small-town, neighborly approach to government and the honest belief that “everybody knows everybody” has overridden any perceived need for strong protections in law.

Peggy Kerns, director of the Center for Ethics in Government at the National Conference of State Legislatures, noted that ethics laws are shaped by the environment and culture of the state. “In smaller states, the culture is different,” she said. “It is harder to disobey the law and go against your own moral core if everyone knows you.”

And statehouses with a history of political corruption and scandal — like New Jersey, Illinois, and Louisiana — have been more likely in recent years to successfully implement reform.

“Legislators will react to a corruption scandal, and work to get political cover by enacting reform,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, vice president for state operations at the nonprofit advocacy group Common Cause.

That’s apparently the case in New Jersey, where a series of scandals helped bring about some of the strongest ethics laws in the country. According to the State Integrity Investigation, New Jersey’s strong points are clear: extensive financial disclosure requirements for the governor, a transparently-run pension fund, and an aggressive ethics enforcement agency. The state also boasts some of the nation’s toughest anti-pay-to-play laws for contractors.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, in an attempt to shed the state of its scandalous political history, enacted sweeping ethics reform legislation as one of his first acts in office back in 2008. Among the new laws: financial disclosure requirements for nearly every public official and caps on how much lobbyists can spend on meals and drinks.

States have taken the initiative on other fronts as well. Connecticut implemented a public financing system for elections. Alabama granted subpoena power to its state ethics commission. South Dakota unveiled an online database for campaign finance records. Florida bans all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers. Citizens in Washington have easy online access to government records and data, including the final map on the state’s Redistricting Commission website (which also lists past meeting minutes, draft plans, and public commentary).

But advocates note that substantial reform efforts are more often the exception rather than the rule. And typically, even new laws often fall short of their goals. Hobert Flynn said she is often “disappointed by how far-reaching the reforms are, how the reforms are implemented, and how they are enforced.”

Measuring the states: The Integrity Index

There are many ways to gauge government integrity. By one recent measure, Chicago ranks as the most corrupt city in the nation. New York places first as the most corrupt state.

Those are the findings of a February report released by the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs, based on public corruption conviction data from the Department of Justice. New York had a grand total of 2,522 federal public corruption convictions from 1976 to 2010, followed closely by California (2,345 convictions) and Illinois (1,828).

But some argue that using convictions as an indicator of which states are “most corrupt” is misleading. A hefty number of prosecutions may actually suggest the system is working — corrupt behavior is rooted out and perpetrators are punished. States with relatively low numbers of convictions are not necessarily more accountable, but perhaps less equipped to sniff out malfeasance and go after the bad guys. So the State Integrity Investigation takes a different approach by measuring the risks of corruption, as reflected in the strength or weakness of laws, policies, and procedures designed to assure transparency and accountability in state government.

Using a combination of on-the-ground investigative reporting and original data collection and analysis, the State Integrity Index researched 330 “Integrity Indicators” across 14 categories of state government: public access to information, political financing, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, state budget processes, civil service management, procurement, internal auditing, lobbying disclosure, pension fund management, ethics enforcement, insurance commissions, and redistricting.

Indicators assess what laws, if any, are on the books (“in law” indicator) and whether the laws are effective in practice (“in practice” indicators). In many states, the disconnect between scores on a state’s law and scores in practice suggest a serious “enforcement gap.”

In other words, the laws are there, just not always followed.

‘Hiding in plain sight’

There have been nods toward transparency almost everywhere. In this era of online, immediately accessible information, some government records are easier to retrieve than ever. Bill language is posted on websites. Top officials disclose personal financial interests. State candidates reveal donors. States devote entire websites to budget expenditures, allowing taxpayers to track government spending

There remain a few holdouts. Idaho, Vermont, and Michigan still have no financial disclosure requirements for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Maryland is the only state in the country that requires an in-person visit to the state capitol to request and view financial disclosure information.

Ed Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, said that governments may seem transparent by making information available, but it is not always presented in a useable or digestible format. He said trying to compare data within a state — say, linking campaign donations to state contracts — can be nearly impossible, and is a huge barrier to transparency.

“It’s disingenuous, hiding in plain sight,” Bender said. “Governments say, ‘here it is,’ but they don’t tell the story.”

Maryland unveiled a series of data-centric government performance measurement and spending websites — like StateStat to track spending of stimulus funds — which Governor Martin O’Malley hailed as the “foundation for restoring accountability and for driving our progress.” But the state’s poor ranking on public access to information — it came in 46th — would suggest otherwise.

“They’re selective on what they share, how they share it, and who they share it with,” said Greg Smith of the nonprofit group Community Research, who said poring through the state’s spending databases can be a headache.

“You can only look at it particle by particle, atom by atom,” he said. When he requests entire databases from state agencies, they refuse, citing a lack of technological expertise to properly export the data.

In every state, citizens have the basic right to access government records. But nearly every law is riddled with holes. Vermont’s Public Records Act boasts more than 260 exemptions, one of which almost always seems to apply to a request for information. Virginia’s law excludes the State Corporation Commission, a regulatory agency that oversees all businesses, utilities, financial institutions, and railroads in the state. Louisiana includes an exemption for records that are part of the “deliberative process” in the governor’s office, which could mean anything from budget negotiations to communications between the governor and his staff. Wyoming lawmakers excluded themselves from the state’s open records policy to prevent citizens from having access to the early bill-writing process. In effect, draft legislation and all related documents are withheld from the public.

In Massachusetts, the barriers to access are especially daunting. Not only are the legislature, governor, and courts exempt from public records law, but legislative votes are not even recorded in committee.

Lax enforcement, zero oversight

Across the board, enforcement is weak. States rarely check the accuracy of campaign finance records or asset disclosures unless prompted by a complaint. Penalties are insignificant or never issued. Violators of the law suffer little more than a slap on the wrist.

Arizona legislators admitted to violating the state’s financial disclosure policy when they failed to report trips paid for by the Fiesta Bowl. Neither the Senate nor House Ethics committee followed with an investigation.

New York’s Board of Elections oversees campaign finance, but can only fine violators $500 for missing filing deadlines. At one point, Senator Pedro Espada owed the state about $13,000 in fines for misfiling records (while also sitting on about $60,000 in fines from the New York City Campaign Finance Board).

Earlier this year, a North Carolina judge ruled that the Secretary of State could not impose a $30,000 fine on a lobbyist who failed to register. The judge cited ambiguous language in the law and decided the Secretary did not have the proper authority.

Forty-one states have an agency tasked with overseeing ethics laws in the state. But many of these agencies are crippled by shortages: inadequate funding, tiny staffs, and limited powers. Delaware’s two-person Public Integrity Commission can hardly keep up with enforcing rules for about 48,000 government employees. In South Carolina, the State Ethics Commission’s budget has been slashed six times in the past three years. When legislators in Alaska leave required information off their financial disclosure forms, the Alaska Public Offices Commission simply does not have the capacity to track down the missing details.

“There’s an inability to enforce the laws on the books,” said Hobert Flynn of Common Cause. “It creates a real crisis and the illusion of strong laws in place.”

In Pennsylvania, said Potts of Democracy Rising PA, the amount of money allocated for enforcement of ethics rules is considered “budget dust.” Governor Tom Corbett cut funding to the state’s ethics commission by five percent in his most recent budget plan, even though the state sits on a surplus that Potts said could “fund all public integrity enforcement for a decade.”

And in states where the financial outlook is still grim, watchdog agencies are often among the first to get cut, consolidated or eliminated entirely. In Connecticut, nine independent agencies were moved under one umbrella organization, the Office of Governmental Accountability. Advocates claim the move saves money and improves efficiency, but critics point to a massive reduction in staff and loss of enforcement power — the agency will likely audit only 10 lobbyists this year, compared with 40 lobbyists the year before.

While there are many examples that highlight a lack of resources, others assert that political factors may also be at play.

Georgia’s legislature slashed the ethics commission’s budget, eliminating all investigative positions and eventually forcing out its two top staffers. The former executive director claimed the funding cuts came with ulterior motives; at the time, the agency was pursuing an investigation against Governor Nathan Deal for improper use of campaign funds and exceeding campaign finance limits. Deal said the cuts were in line with what happened to other agencies. The state’s inspector general followed with an investigation, but found no evidence to support the claim of the commission’s former executive director.

Political loyalties can be a potential problem, especially since many ethics agencies are staffed by gubernatorial or legislative appointments.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo revamped the state’s ethics agency as part of a comprehensive overhaul of state ethics laws. But he stocked the newly-formed Joint Commission on Public Ethics with political allies, including a fundraiser for his reelection campaign and a former staffer. Most recently, he tapped Inspector General Ellen Biben to be the commission’s executive director. Biben, though widely respected in government circles, also served as Cuomo’s deputy in the attorney general’s office, prompting some New Yorkers to question her independence from the administration.

Members of the Alaska Personnel Board are appointed by the same entity they are charged with overseeing — the governor’s office. The Texas Ethics Commission is comprised of appointees by the governor and legislature, which not only presents an inherent conflict but often leads to gridlock. Commissioners are typically split along party lines, but in order to pursue an investigation, at least six of the eight commissioners must agree.

Conflict? What conflict?

Without effective oversight by an independent agency, states frequently rely on a system of self-reporting. The onus falls on public officials to decide for themselves whether their decision-making ability has been compromised. In some cases, the language of the law allows for exceptions; Montana requires legislators to disclose a conflict only if they stand to gain a “direct and personal impact” from the relationship. Often consequences are modest or nonexistent. In Illinois, a legislator should avoid a “substantial threat to his independence of judgment” — but if that line is crossed, there is no penalty.

Kerns of NCSL said it is difficult to implement strong conflict of interest laws, especially for citizen legislatures in which lawmakers almost always hold outside jobs. She doesn’t see anything inherently wrong with that — their background and expertise can be helpful for making policy decisions — unless the lawmaker stands to gain financially from the decision.

“That defies logic,” she said. “People should have better sense.”

Michigan’s conflict of interest laws are largely undefined, so recusal is rare. In 2011, Senate Democrats challenged the notion that lawmakers with a financial interest in limited liability corporations could vote on a tax reform plan. The lieutenant governor ruled that it was up to the lawmakers to decide for themselves if they had a conflict, and no one abstained.

A Hawaii representative, also working as a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, was allowed to vote on a bill that would implement a 10-cent fee for plastic bags. The House Speaker defended the decision: "Just because he represents that company does not mean he cannot vote up or down on the measure.”

For state judges, it’s a similar situation. Nearly all states have rules, codes, or regulations outlining recusal requirements, but again they leave it up to the judges to decide their own impartiality.

“There’s a longstanding principal that no judge should be the judge in his or her own case,” said Charlie Hall, director of communications for Justice at Stake, a national organization that promotes a fair and impartial court system. “There’s a strong sense by many that if one party asks a judge to step aside, there’s something not satisfying by the judge saying, ‘I think I can be impartial. I can make the decision.’ ”

Nine states don’t require judges to disclose outside assets, making it almost impossible to determine if a judge has a conflict at all. And in states where judges run for election, the potential for conflicts to arise is even greater.

“Special interests have discovered judicial elections and the money is pouring in,” Hall said.

Spending on judicial elections more than doubled in the past 20 years. From 2000 to 2009, special interests funneled about $206 million into court elections, up from about $83 million in the previous decade.

Hall said many states are moving forward, albeit slowly, to develop more transparent processes for judicial recusal. But in at least one state — Wisconsin — the courts took what some believe to be a huge step backwards. In 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled that judges need not recuse themselves from cases involving their own campaign donors.

The devil’s in the details: Where the loopholes are

Even the strictest of rules has unforeseen consequences. And when it comes to money, influence, and power in state government, interest groups and big-money donors will find ways around just about any limit.

In South Carolina, corporations and individuals can donate only $1,000 to local House and Senate races or $3,500 to statewide seats. But multi-millionaire Howard Rich skirted the limits by funneling contributions through separate LLCs. He also made the contributions during a “blackout period” — two weeks right before the election when candidates can hold off making donations public until after the election.

Illinois, which passed campaign finance limits for the first time in 2009, places no restrictions on donations by a corporation’s affiliates. So although a corporation is restricted by a $10,000 limit on donations to individual candidates, it can easily multiply that amount through individually incorporated entities.

New York donors can also give freely to “housekeeping accounts,” ostensibly reserved for political party headquarters, staff, and events not affiliated with a particular candidate. Big-time donors, corporations, and trade organizations have donated $11 million to these accounts in the past two years.

Gift bans seek to prevent lobbyists from wining-and-dining legislators to influence policy. Some states, like Missouri, place no restrictions on dollar amounts of gifts, as long as all gifts are disclosed. Other states have much more stringent rules, like in Florida, where lobbyists are banned from buying lawmakers even a cup of coffee.

But even when the laws have been retooled and seem airtight, lobbyists find ways around them. In Oregon, where the gift laws were reformed in 2007 and again in 2009, the language of the law has become so specific in noting exemptions that it’s easy to skirt: entertainment excursions can technically be billed as “fact-finding” missions, for example, which is acceptable under the law. In 2006

North Carolina passed a ban on lobbyists buying meals for individual legislators. So instead, lobbyists bankroll receptions for groups of lawmakers. Florida has a strict ban on lobbyist gift giving, but the state’s definition of lobbyist allows for gaps — not everyone who lobbies is considered a lobbyist under the law — and much of the spending can go unreported.

The lobbyist-lawmaker relationship is a close one in many states, where part-time legislators who meet for short sessions often rely on outside expertise to guide their policy decisions. Those relationships become even stronger when ex-legislators move almost immediately into the private sector, exerting influence over their former colleagues. “Cooling off” periods — the length of time between when a legislator leaves office and when he can register as a lobbyist — aim to diffuse those relationships.

But in some states, there’s no such waiting time. In Idaho, a former legislator, after losing her reelection campaign, was quickly hired as the lobbyist for a property developer — a move not only accepted, but recommended by the House Speaker.

The same holds true in Nebraska, where at least 16 former lawmakers are now registered lobbyists. There, as in other states, term limits push lawmakers out into the private sector, so it is not unusual for former legislators to represent special interests like Big Tobacco and health insurance companies.

Closed to the public

California faced a $23 billion budget shortfall in 2011. The state opens up the budgeting process to the public — but only to a point. Citizens can participate in forums and meetings leading up to final budget negotiations, when the “Big Five” (the governor and four legislative leaders) take the discussion behind closed doors to finalize the bill.

Such is a common practice in many states, where open meetings and public testimony occur, but usually for the sake of appearance only. The real decisions are made when no one is looking.

According to the Index, California ranks near the bottom on budget transparency, losing points for citizen access to budget expenditures and public input at hearings.

New York, which faced a shortfall of $8.5 billion, falls a few places below California. Again, the public can view budget documents and comment at hearings on the front end, but the final bill is quickly pushed through, giving citizens little opportunity to react. The final budget often includes a few surprising compromises that were made behind closed doors.

Redistricting, a notoriously opaque and politically-tainted process in many states, is actually where California stood out. It received top marks for redistricting transparency, due largely to its new Citizens Redistricting Commission that gave power to a randomly-selected group of Californians instead of the legislature.

In other states, though, the redistricting process largely remains a mystery to constituents. Although the redrawing of district lines directly impacts voters and communities, the public is usually left out of the process. In a worst case scenario, maps are redrawn by the very legislators who are seeking reelection, allowing them to ensure the new district lines fall in their favor.

Many states are finding ways to include, or at least educate, the public on this process by holding meetings, making census data available online, or encouraging citizens to submit their own maps. But even if the state goes through those motions, it does not guarantee the public commentary will be taken into account in the final map.

Other states don’t even try. During the 2011 redistricting session in Wisconsin, Republican legislators unveiled map proposals, held one public hearing, and passed their plan in two weeks. In Oklahoma, meetings were held within days of census data being released, giving the public no real chance to provide strong input.

“The government belongs to the people,” said Common Cause’s Hobert Flynn. “They should have full access to the process and how decisions are made.”

It’s a noble goal, to be sure. But as the State Integrity Investigation reveals, it is one that’s rarely met.

Health industry gave millions to state officials involved in lawsuit

Texas,United States — 2011-11-14T14:37:08-05:00

The state officials who joined together to file a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform have collectively received at least $5 million in campaign contributions from the health industry over the course of their political careers, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Using data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the Center found that top recipients of industry money include Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has received more than $1 million from health care professionals since 1996, and former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, who took in at least $970,163 from the industry starting in 1992, when he was a state senator, until he left the governor’s office this week. Other major recipients involved in the lawsuit include former Pennsylvania Attorney General and newly-elected Governor Tom Corbett, who has received about $830,000, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, with more than $770,000.

The money has flowed from a variety of interests ranging from hospitals and drug companies to health care insurers and doctors. Many oppose the mandate in the new law requiring Americans to buy health care coverage.

While the American Medical Association ultimately supported the bill, various state affiliates, including those in both Texas and Georgia, broke ranks with the national organization and came out against the law. Conservative doctors within the AMA have also pushed to rescind the group’s support of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

Abbott and Perdue are among the governors and attorneys general in 20 states who filed the lawsuit in a Florida federal court on March 23, 2010, immediately after President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The suit challenges the individual mandate for health care coverage, as well as the expansion of Medicaid that the suit claims will strain already burdened state budgets.

The opening arguments of the Florida case — which took place in December — came on the heels of a victory for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who last month won his own case against the federal mandate. That decision has now been appealed by the Justice Department, and is headed for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va. Cuccinelli, who has been the state’s attorney general since January 2010, has received almost $69,000 from the health industry since 2003.

State leaders voiced opposition to the new law immediately upon its passing last March. Twelve of the officials involved in the Florida lawsuit ran for office in 2010. During the 2010 election cycle, health care interests — various sorts of health care professionals, hospitals and health care facilities, and pharmaceutical companies — gave at least $1.7 million to those candidates.

Some in the Florida Medical Association accused the AMA of “failing to lead and represent America’s physicians and the American people on the signature medical legislative issue of this century” and considered splitting from the national organization entirely. Instead, the FMA pledged its support of Attorney General Bill McCollum, who led the charge in the multi-state lawsuit, in his 2010 gubernatorial primary campaign.

McCollum told the Center that the federal government simply had no authority under the Constitution to enact the law, especially in requiring people to buy health insurance. “Every state is negatively affected by this law,” McCollum said. Referring to some Democratic state Attorneys General who have not joined the suit, he said they “may be leery of joining the lawsuit for partisan reasons, but they know it’s the right thing to do.”

McCollum is also wary of the new eligibility requirements for Medicaid, which would mean an additional millions of enrollees at an eventual cost of billions to the states; the federal government will pick up the additional Medicaid costs through 2016. In a state like Florida, where there is already a shortage of doctors and nurses, he said “the cost is staggering,” he said.

McCollum, who has called the law “public policy at its worst, in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” received about $340,000 from the industry, mostly health professionals, during his 2010 gubernatorial bid. McCollum, who served as Florida’s attorney general from 2007 until earlier this month, lost the primary to now-Governor Rick Scott. Pam Bondi, who succeeded McCollum as attorney general and will take up his cause in the lawsuit, received about $75,000 from the industry, some $64,000 of which came from health professionals. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece this month, she said “our lawsuit, together with a similar lawsuit filed by Virginia's attorney general, has exposed the health-care law's threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional structure that the Founders designed as a means of protecting that liberty.” The FMA endorsed Bondi as well.

Corbett, who served as Pennsylvania’s attorney general for six years before being elected governor this past November, received more than $650,000 from health interests during his 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Top donors include the state’s affiliate of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, one of 23 surgical organizations that opposed the legislation, the physician-owned Surgical Institute of Reading, and Dr. John Templeton Jr., a wealthy philanthropist and one of the most influential Republicans in the state.

Abbott, first elected Texas attorney general in 2002, received at least $271,350 from the industry during the 2010 campaign. Donations include $50,000 from Border Health PAC, the political action committee for the Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, one the largest physician-owned hospitals in the country. Physician-owned facilities would gain little from the health reform legislation, according to the trade group Physicians Hospitals of America, as it bans the creation of new facilities and stifles the expansion of those currently operating. The Texas Medical Association maintained that it could not support the bill, as a survey of its members found that almost 70 percent believed it would make the health care system worse.

South Carolina’s Henry McMaster, attorney general since 2003, received about $173,000 in donations from health interests, mostly professionals in the industry, during his 2010 gubernatorial campaign. He lost in the primary. The South Carolina Medical Association did not support the bill.

Former Attorney General Troy King of Alabama received at least $132,227 from the industry in 2010, including $74,000 from Home Care PAC, associated with the Home Care Association of Alabama. King, the state’s attorney general since 2004, lost in the primary, but his successor, Luther Strange III, applauded the ruling against the individual mandate in Cuccinelli’s case. Strange received at least $132,000 from health interests, including $20,000 from ALAPAC, the Medical Association of the State of Alabama’s political action committee. The association opposed the bill.

The state attorneys general and governors who filed suit in the Florida case are: Bill McCollum, then-attorney general of Florida; Henry McMaster, attorney general of South Carolina; Jon Bruning, attorney general of Nebraska; Greg Abbott, attorney general of Texas; Mark L. Shurtleff, attorney general of Utah; Troy King, then-attorney general of Alabama; James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, attorney general of Louisiana; Michael A. Cox, then-attorney general of Michigan; John W. Suthers, attorney general of Colorado; Thomas W. Corbett, attorney general of Pennsylvania; Robert McKenna, attorney general of Washington; Lawrence G. Wasden, attorney general of Idaho; Marty J. Jackley, attorney general of South Dakota; Gregory F. Zoeller, attorney general of Indiana; Wayne Stenehjem, attorney general of North Dakota; Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi; Janice K. Brewer, governor of Arizona; Jim Gibbons, then-governor of Nevada; Sonny Perdue, then-governor of Georgia; and Daniel S. Sullivan, then-attorney general of Alaska.

Alaska’s attorney general is appointed, not elected; therefore, Alaska’s campaign contributions were not analyzed for this story.

Kimberly Leonard contributed to this report.