While Arizona dropped two places
in the rankings, the state did move up into
the C range in 2007 due to improvements in
the Online Contextual and Textual Usability
category.
Arizona’s disclosure law requires
that candidates report detailed information
about their contributors, including occupation
and employer. Candidates must disclose
all campaign expenditures, but subvendor
information is not reported. Last-minute
contributions and independent expenditures
are not reported until after the election,
representing a major weakness in the state’s
campaign finance law. Arizona’s law
requiring electronic filing by all legislative
and statewide candidates continues to buoy
the state’s overall grade.
Arizona’s interface for accessing
campaign finance data online has changed
little since 2005, earning the state a
D+ in the accessibility category again
in 2007. The same limitations encountered
in past assessments remain. Specifically,
the site’s contributions database
offers few search fields and there is no
database of campaign expenditures. The
contribution database on the Secretary
of State’s web site can be searched
only by contributor name and contribution
date, and the usefulness of the date field
is limited because it requires first specifying
a contributor’s name. Even selecting
a contributor’s name can be difficult
as searches of common last names (for example, “Adams” or “Wilson”)
are met with the site returning a “Please
try to be more specific” message.
However, even restricting searches by contributor
name and time period continues to return
this message. On a positive note, Arizona
is in the process of a complete system
overhaul scheduled to be in place for the
2008 elections. It will be a great benefit
to the public to have easier access to
campaign data in a state that already has
a strong electronic filing system.
Arizona earned an F for web site usability
for the fourth time in this study, but
did receive a slightly higher ranking as
usability test scores returned to their
2004 level. The site received a makeover
in late 2005 that may have contributed
to more positive responses from testers
regarding their overall experience. While
neither the terminology used on the site,
nor the functionality of the database has
improved, the index of reports filed by
a candidate now clearly indicates which
reports have been amended.
→ Quick
Fix: Provide a general
description of the universe of
data available for viewing online. The
disclosure web site contains very
little contextual information to
help site visitors understand which
candidates’ reports
are online, and what time period
is covered by the database.
♦ Editor’s
Pick: The site offers
an index of candidate reports that
clearly indicates whether reports
were filed on time, the date of amended
filings as well as the method used
to file each report. View image
