02.13.01

By Kevin Crossett

In Virginia, full disclosure is the name of the campaign finance game. Organizations, lobbyists and private citizens may give as much money as they want as long as the candidate reports the donation to the State Board of Elections.

Some legislators, however, have expressed concern that the reporting of campaign expenditures may be open to abuse – with candidates using the money to possibly line their own pockets.

"There’s been a number of concerns from various groups that feel Virginia is one of the laxest states in campaign finance laws," said Sen. Frank W. Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, who is on a panel that has been studying the issue.

"We saw examples as we were going through during the study committee of fairly large expenditures – in the thousands of dollars – basically for campaign materials with no idea what those materials actually were to address," he said.

Wagner this session sponsored a bill that may help the problem. His measure, which the House Privileges and Elections Committee approved 20-2 on Monday, would hold General Assembly members to stricter standards for reporting campaign expenditures. It also would increase accountability and tighten the deadline for submitting campaign finance reports.

Currently, Wagner said, if a member spends $5,000 on campaign materials, he may report it as a general expenditure – in a lump sum. Wagner said that under his proposal, the candidate would have to account for the money – and a financial review process would ensure it was accurately attributed.

"What we’re asking for," he said, "is some type of specificity" on expenditures. In some campaign spending reports, "you really have no idea what the money was being used for."

Wagner’s concern included the members' use of credit cards during their campaigns.

Under the current law, he told the committee, members may reimburse themselves for credit card purchases and only record general statements about what the money was used for. His proposed bill would require an itemized listing of all credit card purchases.

In another example, Wagner said, members could give a consultant $50,000 and tell him to spend it on the election campaign. The disclosure report, however, may state only that the money went to a consultant.

"Let’s be real. We all do this. We’re all in the business. If I wanted to take $50,000 and say ‘Consultant run it’ … the opposition candidate would have no idea what’s been expended where, when and how."

In rebuttal, Delegate John S. "Jack" Reid, R-Richmond, told the committee, "I’m well aware of that. The point I’m trying to make is that there’s a difference between the payment to a consultant for his work for you as a consultant and the payment to a consultant to go out and buy the media for you."

Cameron P. Quinn, secretary of the State Board of Elections, agrees.

"I think," she said, "there is a difference between explaining expenses between a payment to a consultant for consulting and a payment to a consultant for buying media."

Wagner’s bill would also change the deadline requirements for mailing reports. Instead of mandating the report to be postmarked by the filing deadline, Wagner proposed that the board must receive all the reports by the deadline date.

"It makes it clear that when you do report, it arrives on time."