Arizona
again received an overall D+, but dropped
five places in the rankings to 28th,
resulting in a cumulative drop of twelve
places since 2003, when it ranked 16th
overall. The state also lost
ground in Online Contextual and Technical
Usability.
Arizona’s
disclosure law, which is average by this
study’s standards,
requires that candidates report detailed
information about contributors, including
occupation and employer. Candidates
must disclose all expenditures regardless
of amount, but subvendor information is
not reported. A lack of reporting of last-minute
contributions and independent expenditures
until after the election is still a major
weak point in the state’s campaign
finance law. Arizona’s strength
throughout the three-year study has been
its law requiring electronic filing by
all legislative and statewide candidates.
The
mechanism for accessing campaign finance
data on the Internet has changed little,
and the same limitations encountered in
2004 remain, namely a small number of searchable
fields and no way to search expenditure
data. 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 contribution date field is limited,
because it requires first specifying a
contributor’s name. Furthermore,
project researchers encountered a number
of problems attempting searches in 2005,
with the site returning a “Please
try to be more specific” message
even when limiting the search to one contributor
name, one candidate and a one-week time
period. Another message on the site
indicates that a new search mechanism will
be online soon.
Arizona
already earned an F in 2004 for web site
usability, but usability testers gave
the state’s disclosure site
an even lower score in 2005 and caused
Arizona’s rank to drop again, from
42nd to 48th place, in this category. There
are signs that change is underway—the
Secretary of State’s web site received
a makeover in 2005, but not until after
the close of the study’s research
period at the end of June. The updated
web site includes some obvious improvements
in site organization, navigation and aesthetics,
but some of the terminology problems persist,
and the database functionality does not
appear to have improved.
→ Quick
Fix: Add “data
history” information. 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. Adding
even a simple 1-2 paragraph description
of which records are available online
would be an improvement.
♦ Editor’s
Pick: Clear,
specific and up-to-date “Campaign
Contribution Limits” chart. View image
