Brian over at Bearing Drift brought up an issue that I had been thinking about in conjunction with last Saturday’s Republican canvass. Although I don’t live in the 8th Senate district, I was as inundated with TV and radio ads as anyone who did. The only thing missing was the mail, which I understand was unbelievable in the amount received.
That there has been no reporting on this race since June 30 seems to be antithetical to the premise of Virginia’s campaign finance laws. They are predicated upon transparency and disclosure, but when the reporting schedule (pdf) essentially treats a special election as a “candidate whose office is not up for re-election this year,” the result is anything but. The next reporting required for a candidate in a special election doesn’t kick in until eight days before the general election. In this case, the nominating contest was, essentially, the general election, but there is nothing in the law to provide for a situation like that.
I note that the large, pre-election contributions of $1,000 or more kick in 12 days prior to the nominating contest. But no such reports are available on either vpap or the SBE website for either candidate.
My sense is that if the large, pre-election contribution rule applies to nominating contests, there should be a filing requirement prior to nominating contests. Yes, I understand that the timing of these things is difficult; the Republican Party of Virginia Beach did not decide on the date of the canvass until November 20, giving the campaigns just two weeks to “prepare.” However, even with the tight deadline, I agree that the filing requirement should be eight days prior to the nominating contest.
The general assembly needs to fix this issue.
~
Of course, the other big issue to me in campaign finance in Virginia is the lack of an audit requirement. As it stands right now, campaign finance reports can be pure fantasy: as long as the reports balance, no one is looking, unless a complaint is filed. (As I previously discussed here and which was the topic of this article.) There should be a random audit requirement and after each filing period, a small number of reports should undergo an audit. And this should apply at the local level as well, since many of the filings are made there. I’m from the school of “trust, but verify” when it comes to anything financial. If transparency is what we are after, random audits shouldn’t be a question; it should have been there all along.
In addition, let me suggest that the financial report include the bank account information. Right now, that information does not appear anywhere on the report. The report should include the name of the bank, the account number, and the bank balance, reconciled to the ending balance on the report. To be perfectly honest, if such a requirement had been in place, the embezzlement of Jason Robinson would have been discovered much earlier. Ideally, there should be a way for a copy of the last bank statement (or all bank statements covered by the report) to be included with the report, as an attachment.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I agree with you on the lack of necessary rules for special elections.
The random audits would be a good idea as well.
If we’re not going to have campaign finance limits because we rely on “full disclosure” then we should at least require FULL disclosure.
We need comprehensive campaign finance reform. As previously posted:
As we now have it in Virginia, corporations, PACs and citizens who do not even reside in a particular district can give money to a candidate.
If we want the voices of the citizens of each district to be more clearly heard, we must take the following steps:
1. Eliminate corporate contributions. Corporations are profit making entities whose by-laws mandate that they expend money only with the expectation of a return on that investment. This is perceived by the citizens as corruption.
2. Eliminate PAC contributions.
3. Restrict contributions to come only from citizens whose PRIMARY residence is within the district.
4. Cap the amount to the federal limit for an individual contribution.
These reforms will amplify the voices of the citizens who reside in the respective districts, and restore the representative relationship between our elected officials and the citizens who reside in their areas of representation.
Campaign finance reform will enhance the ability of the individual citizen to be heard.
That restriction on primary residence would unfairly exclude folks who genuinely have a concern about who is elected to state or higher office from the process. I give money to candidates outside my district. And I give money to my party that then gives that on to candidates outside my district.
Your elected representative has a say in how I am governed and how the company I work for is regulated. So why should I or anyone else be excluded from that process?
JTB,
I’d agree on #s 1 and 4.
#2-PACs represent people. I’d eliminate corporate PACs.
#3-No. Virginia legislators vote on issues that affect the entire state, not just their districts. How about just required contributions to come from Virginia?
#2 – Just eliminating corporate PACs is easy enough to get around. Then the management of the company would just get together as individuals and form a people PAC. Corporations are made up of people too. =)
I don’t like #3, not only because of the concerns tx2vadem raises but also because it puts challengers at an unfair advantage. Donors are less likely to give to a challenger than an incumbent.