Grading State Disclosure 2005 Logo Graphic

M i c h i g a n

Grade
Rank
B-
8

golden bar divider

Subcategories
Grade
Rank
Campaign Disclosure Law
C
32
Electronic Filing Program
A+
1
Disclosure Content Accessibility
A
2
Online Contextual & Technical Usability
C
13

Grading Process green cube Subcategory Weighting green cube Methodology green cube Glossary

golden bar divider

The State of Disclosure in Michigan

After ranking 10th in 2003 and 6th in 2004, Michigan placed right in between at 8th in 2005 and received an overall B-, slightly lower than last year’s B. Disclosure Content Accessibility and Electronic Filing remain its biggest strengths.

Michigan again received a C for its average disclosure law, but dropped a few places in the law rankings as other states improved their disclosure requirements. Candidates must report details about contributors giving more than $100, including occupation and employer. Expenditure disclosure is weaker and does not include subvendor details or accrued expenses; reporting of loan details could also be improved.  Last-minute contributions and independent expenditures must be reported prior to Election Day. Both statewide and legislative candidates reaching a threshold of $20,000 must file reports electronically.

Michigan maintained its 2nd place ranking in the Disclosure Content Accessibility category, and continues to provide excellent access to campaign finance records through the Secretary of State’s office and web site. Its contribution and expenditure databases can serve as a model for other states, and have great functionality, a wide range of search options, and data going back to 1997. Access to reports filed on paper could be improved by adding those records to the searchable database.

The state’s grade for Online Contextual and Technical Usability dropped from a B- to a C, due to a poorer performance in the usability test. Testers had more difficulty locating the total amount raised by the governor, and expressed less confidence in the accuracy of the information they did collect. Strengths in web site usability include complete candidate lists, resources to help the public determine whose records are on the site, and in-depth information about campaign finance restrictions and disclosure requirements.

Quick Fix: Summary data. Offer site visitors overview information comparing fundraising and spending of all candidates, either through a new database function or in a static document.

Editor’s Pick: Data history information and explanations about committee types and campaign statements, designed specifically for the general public. View image

Disclosure Agency: Department of State
Disclosure Web Site:
http://www.michigan.gov/sos

View another state's summary:

Back to the Grading State Disclosure home page


This page was first published on October 26, 2005
| Last updated on October 26, 2005
copyright ©
Campaign Disclosure Project. All rights reserved.