Electronic Reporting Of Campaign Finances
By Leonard Greco May 29, 2002

Two pieces of legislation requiring full disclosure by candidates for public office regarding the reporting of campaign finances drew support from public interest groups at public hearings May 21. That support, however, was qualified.

Although Phil Goldstein, a member of the Independence Party United We Stand, and Campaign Finance Board Executive Director Lee Lutz said they support the concept of full disclosure, both indicated they had some concerns.

The first resolution, filed last month by Legislator Allan Binder (R-Huntington), calls for full public disclosure of campaign finances via the Internet. The other resolution, filed two months ago by Legislator Jon Cooper (D-Huntington), calls for full disclosure of campaign finances to the Board of Elections and the Campaign Finance Board.

The Campaign Finance Board was formed as a result of the county's campaign finance legislation, approved by a voter referendum two years ago, that allowed for matching funds for candidates who opted into a public finance program. Unfortunately, public support via contributions to public financing has fallen woefully short of expectations.

Goldstein, who explained that he does indeed support the concept of full disclosure, pointed out that such disclosure should be made to the Campaign Finance Board rather than to the Suffolk County Board of Elections. Lutz, meanwhile, said it was equally important to have full disclosure of campaign finances available to the public through the Internet.

"The county Board of Elections is a bipartisan operation," Goldstein noted regarding the policy of choosing BOE representatives from Democrats and Republicans on a rotating basis. "The Campaign Finance Board on the other hand is non-partisan." Goldstein said that in addition to the possibility of political influence in the BOE, the Board of Elections would need to hire more people, which Goldstein characterized as "more patronage."

"That would place the program in the dubious hands of a so-called bipartisan board," Goldstein continued. He added that both bills should go back to the committee process for reworking before coming to the floor of the Legislature for votes.

Lutz pointed out that state law already requires full disclosure of campaign finances. However, he said creating a computer database containing such information is a mandate of his board. "Both bills aid in the implementation of the law and promote at least one goal of disclosure," Lutz said. "That is to provide valuable information to the electorate in the process of choosing to support one candidate or another for public office. The Campaign Finance Board urges this Legislature to require county candidates and political committees supporting them to file simultaneously with the Campaign Finance Board as well as with the Board of Elections [as both these pieces of legislation do]. It also urges this Legislature to require the filing be done by electronic means."

Lutz added that he is pleased that both bills appear to intend to achieve positive advancements in serving Suffolk residents. He said the significant technological advances of the Internet would "facilitate the public's ability to access this information. It would once again demonstrate Suffolk's willingness to be in the forefront of government service to its residents."

Both Binder's and Cooper's bills could come up for a vote at the Legislature's next meeting, which is scheduled for June 11 in Hauppauge.

 

©Suffolk Life Newspapers 2002