Grading State Disclosure

Oklahoma’s disclosure program earned a C in 2007, ranking 23rd overall. Strong gains in the Electronic Filing category were offset by a weaker performance in other categories, resulting in the same overall grade as in 2005.

Oklahoma received a lower disclosure law grade in 2007 as study researchers found that candidates are required to report the dates and descriptions of their campaign expenses, but not the names of vendors. The law requires that candidates report detailed information about contributors giving more than $50, including occupation and employer data. Large, last-minute contributions are disclosed prior to Election Day, as are last-minute independent expenditures. Electronic filing became mandatory in 2006 for both statewide and legislative candidates who reach a $20,000 threshold. The Oklahoma Ethics Commission provided training sessions in advance of the mandate to assist new electronic filers, and the agency reports having strong technical support for its program.

Oklahoma earned a B- and ranked 22nd in the Disclosure Content Accessibility category in 2007. Electronically-filed reports are available immediately online, and paper filings are posted within five days of receipt. The state offers online, searchable contribution and expenditure databases that include both electronically-filed reports and data-entered records from paper-filed reports. The result is that Oklahoma’s online databases, which were previously found to contain only 25 percent of state disclosure records, are now comprehensive. Improvements could be made to the functionality of the databases. Currently, users can limit their searches by aggregate amounts, but cannot search records by an exact amount. Users can search expenditures by vendor; however, because vendor name disclosure is not mandatory, the search does not return comprehensive results. Given that campaigns must disclose the date and purpose of an expenditure, adding these search fields would be useful.

Oklahoma’s grade in the web site usability category slipped back into the F range after having earned a D- in 2005. Usability testers took longer finding specific data in 2007 and found the site’s terminology to be more confusing than in 2005. While the site now includes a helpful candidates list, it could be enhanced with additional contextual information. Specifically, explaining the contents of the databases, including which candidate reports are available, the time period covered and instructions for accessing the data would be of great help to site visitors. The Ethics Commission provides informative “Top Ten” lists of candidates’ fundraising; providing complete summaries of totals raised and spent by all candidates would add valuable contextual information to the web site.

♦ Editor’s Pick: The “Statistical Information” page offers top ten lists of committees receiving the most contributions, making the most expenditures, and maintaining the largest account balances. View image