Re-Establishing Institutional Integrity at the FEC:

Ten Common Sense Campaign Finance Disclosure Reforms

1. Utilize Existing Checks and Balances: Compare Databases

The FEC does not compare PAC receipts reported by candidates with contributions reported by the PACs. The current system allows inaccuracies in FEC data to go undetected and uncorrected. The FEC should compare sets of data as a basis for checking the accuracy of PAC and candidate data.

2. Make Compilation and Filing of Data Uniform by Campaign-Cycle

The FEC groups data in two calendar year periods. As a result, it is nearly impossible to determine violations of contribution limits. The FEC should begin to group data by two- and six-year campaign-cycles.

Candidates and PACs file primary and general campaign data in monthly, quarterly and semiannual reports by calendar year. Campaign finance laws, however, do not correspond with calendar years, but with primary and general campaign-cycles. New legislation should simplify the process by requiring candidates and PACs to file by two- and six-year campaign-cycles. This reform may also require extending contribution limits from the current per-election basis to campaign cycles.

3. Eliminate Irregular PAC Names

The FEC, the candidates and the PACs use neither the same name for a PAC nor their already-established identification numbers when filing receipts and disbursements, making it difficult to check contribution limits. The FEC should enforce its current requirement to use similar PAC names (i.e., the name printed on the check) and require I.D. numbers on all receipts and disbursements.

4. Eliminate Duplicate Entries

The FEC does not correct many duplicate entries in filings submitted by candidates. POGO's investigation also revealed that the FEC often unwittingly creates duplicate entries by assigning two different transaction numbers to the same contribution. Once duplicates are discovered, the FEC should send an inquiry to the PAC asking for confirmation of the two contributions.

5. Candidates Should Report Returned Checks

When PAC contributions are returned by candidates, PACs often do not report the unaccepted contribution to the FEC, although it is currently required. The FEC should recommend to candidates who return PAC contributions, that they provide the FEC with a list of the PACs and the returned contributions.

6. Notify Candidates of All "In-Kind" Contributions

Campaign committees are not always aware of "in-kind" PAC contributions even though the contributions have been reported by the PACs to the FEC. The FEC should require PACs to notify campaign committees of all "in-kind" contributions.

7. FEC Needs Better Tools to Encourage Compliance

The FEC does not have adequate tools to enforce compliance and deter noncompliance with regulations.

The FEC should be granted the authority to conduct random audits as a deterrent to noncompliance.

The FEC should consider publishing a report, press release and web page that would list PACs and candidates whose reports were found by the FEC to be incomplete or inaccurate.

A fee schedule should be created and enforced for noncompliance.

8. Mandatory Electronic Filing

Electronic filing is not required for candidate or PAC filings. If electronic filing were mandated by Congress for candidates and PACs reporting over a certain level of financial activity, many, if not all, of POGO's reforms could be incorporated into the electronic filing system. This system would dramatically increase the accuracy and thoroughness of FEC data.

9. Streamline Senate Filing

The Senate mandates that its candidates file their reports with the Secretary of the Senate (Office of Public Records) which only sends the reports to the FEC on microfilm. Senate candidates should be required to send their filings directly to the FEC, as is already required of the House.

10. Streamline Joint Fund-Raisers & Multi-Candidate Committees

PACs usually issue one check that is later divided by multiple candidates involved in a multi-candidate entity. This practice muddies disclosure. Congress should require that separate checks be issued to each participating member in the multi-candidate entity.