The 1999 Digital Sunlight Awards
and Progress Report

A nationwide survey and forecast for
Internet disclosure of money in politics

Authored by Kim Alexander and Stephen Levine
Published December 7, 1999 by the California Voter Foundation

Report Outline




Overview: National Forecast - Partly Sunny


Background: From Filing Cabinets to Digital Disclosure


State-of-the-art public disclosure


About the Digital Sunlight Awards and the California Voter Foundation


Digital Sunlight Awards Criteria


About the Digital Sunlight Award Winners


Electronic Filing

* Voluntary vs. mandatory electronic filing
* The need for funding
* Software and standard filing formats


Online Disclosure

* Itemized contributions
* Public disclosure and privacy rights
* Accessing the data
* Availability of historic records
* No access fees
* Scanning and data-entry
* Voluntary disclosure on campaign web sites
* Locating online disclosure information
* Site design and performance


Concluding Thoughts

* Advice for digital sunlight advocates
* Suggestions for disclosure agency staff
* What it will take to move further into the digital sunlight

I. Introduction

In American democracy, money talks. Money often dictates who wins, who loses, which laws are enacted, and which bills fail. If money equals speech, then the public has the right to know who's doing the talking, and how much.

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures helps improve accountability and trust in government. At a time when faith in the political process has eroded, better disclosure is a reform that is desperately needed. Thanks to the Internet, the public can finally have the kind of meaningful access needed to understand how money is affecting politics. The money that fuels this country's political activities can now be exposed to a much wider audience, helping to make politics more transparent to the people and helping voters make more informed decisions at election time.

This study identifies which states are moving their disclosure records onto the Internet and into the digital sunlight, and which states are not. Each state has been evaluated, ranked and rated based on progress made toward electronic filing of political disclosure records, and current availability of political disclosure data on official state web sites. Top-rated states earn the prestigious Digital Sunlight Award. Additional ratings include Mostly Sunny, Partly Sunny, Partly Cloudy, Mostly Cloudy, and Dark Skies.

Evaluations were conducted by a team of experienced researchers and panel of expert judges. Through the Digital Sunlight Awards, the California Voter Foundation is helping shine a brighter light on one of the most important and promising areas of political reform.

II. Overview: National Forecast - Partly Sunny

Today 32 states are moving forward on electronic filing. Of these, 17 states have enacted mandatory electronic filing laws, and another 15 states are currently offering or developing voluntary electronic filing programs. Thirty-five state disclosure agency web sites provide some kind of campaign finance disclosure information. Thirty-one states have appropriated funding for disclosure agencies specifically to fund digital disclosure efforts.

Illinois, New York, Michigan, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Virginia are at the forefront of the digital disclosure movement underway in the U.S. and for their efforts the California Voter Foundation pleased to honor these seven states with the 1999 Digital Sunlight Award.

Seven states rated in the "mostly sunny" category, including Texas, Arizona, Washington, Florida, New Jersey, Indiana and Utah. Twelve states rated as "partly sunny": Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Colorado. On the darker side of the scale, seven states rated "partly cloudy": Maryland, Idaho, Alabama, Minnesota, Georgia, Ohio and Nebraska. Nine states were found to be "mostly cloudy": Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, and Maine. Finally, there are the eight "Dark Skies" states, with little or no Internet disclosure activity to date: Montana, Vermont, Delaware, West Virginia, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Tennessee and South Carolina.

States scored an average of 54 points, placing the country as a whole in the "Partly Sunny" category. Summaries of each states' activities are available, as is a map of the country showing a color-coded guide for each state's rating.

III. Background: From Filing Cabinets to Digital Disclosure

Twenty-five years ago, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, new laws were enacted across the country requiring public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. It was hoped that public disclosure would deter politicians from being unduly influenced by contributors. But any reporter or citizen who has ever tried to "follow the money" knows how difficult it can be to search through paper records. The extraordinary amount of money being raised and spent in today's political campaigns has rendered paper disclosure virtually meaningless.

The rising popularity of the Internet has increased the public's appetite and demand for better access to government records, including campaign finance data. The Internet provides an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the original intent of our country's disclosure laws by offering the public convenient, 24-hour access to campaign finance data.

Before campaign finance records can be published online, they must be computerized. The most accurate, cost-effective and timely way to computerize campaign finance data is to require electronic filing so that records are disclosed in a digital format in the first place. Since the early 1990's, local, state and federal disclosure agencies have been experimenting with electronic filing and Internet disclosure in an effort to improve public access to disclosure data. The term "electronic filing" or "e-filing" generally refers to any kind of filing system that accepts reports in a digital format -- either on diskette, or over the Internet, typically via email or a web form.

IV. State-of-the-art public disclosure

What is the ideal? Instant online disclosure. The best situation is one where the curious citizen can log on to the Internet and easily locate official campaign finance disclosure information. The data is comprehensive, and can be accessed in a number of ways. Itemized contributions and expenditures can be searched by various fields, such as zip code, name, date of contribution and contributor's occupation or employer. The records are accurate and easy to understand, and the data is served up quickly. For those who want to browse the records, the site provides a hyperlinked inventory of available files. For more advanced users, the site offers the ability to download records and import the data into a computer program such as Excel for offline sorting and searching. The records are available on the Internet at the moment they are filed with the disclosure agency.

Because the information is on the Internet, it's available 24 hours a day, unlike the paper records that are only available from a government office that may be located far away from the citizen and available only during business hours on weekdays. Because it is immediately disclosed, citizens can find out about last-minute campaign contributions and expenditures and use that information to make more informed voting decisions.

This scenario is not a fantasy. This is the state of the art of public disclosure in the United States. What enables instant online disclosure is electronic filing. When disclosure records are filed in a digital format, rather than paper, they can be placed immediately on the Internet. Already 32 states have electronic filing programs in place or in progress. Of these, 17 require candidates to file electronically, and 15 states offer voluntary electronic filing.

While instant online disclosure is a simple idea, bringing it about can be very challenging. For a state to offer electronic filing and online access to campaign finance data requires software, hardware, technical expertise, and a fast and reliable Internet connection.

V. About the Digital Sunlight Awards and
the California Voter Foundation

While many states are moving toward electronic filing and Internet disclosure, some are moving faster than others, and several state legislatures and elections agencies have yet to make any significant progress toward digital sunlight. The California Voter Foundation has been promoting the concept of digital sunlight since 1995, when the organization produced the world's first real-time Internet campaign finance database for San Francisco's municipal election. Since then, CVF has been tracking digital disclosure activity in the United States and publishing periodic updates on the status of digital sunlight efforts.

The California Voter Foundation (CVF) developed the Digital Sunlight Awards program to further advance Internet disclosure of campaign data nationwide and help the public determine how their state's disclosure efforts compare with others. This awards program has been funded with a grant from the Joyce Foundation. CVF is a non-profit, nonpartisan 501(c)3 organization dedicated to advancing new technologies to improve democracy. More information about CVF is available online at

The ratings research was conducted between August and November 1999, and involved legislative research, multiple web site visits over time, and interviews with agency staff, legislative staff and activists. Online disclosure is a moving target, and some states made significant improvements during the time the study was conducted.

This report offers a snapshot of the state of the art in late 1999. The report highlights successes as well as setbacks so that states can learn from each other, improve their performance, and rapidly advance toward truly meaningful political disclosure.

This study is the first-ever nationwide ranking of the 50 states' movement toward Internet disclosure of money in politics, and provides a benchmark from which future progress can be measured. CVF plans to repeat this awards and ratings program in two years, at which time the criteria may change as other factors and needs are considered as the state of technology advances.

VI. Digital Sunlight Awards Criteria

The Digital Sunlight Awards criteria was developed based on the scenario featured above. Each state was evaluated and scored for their efforts to advance instant online disclosure. A 100 point rating system was developed, with up to 50 points for electronic filing activities, and up to 50 points for the current availability of campaign finance data on the state's web site. A "bonus" section provided up to 15 extra points for digital disclosure activities involving other types of filers, such as lobbyists and PACs. All ratings were evaluated by a panel of judges who are well-versed in the field of campaign finance disclosure.

The criteria and ratings strongly favor electronic filing as the best solution for providing the most timely, detailed and accurate disclosure data on the Web. States were rated specifically for their efforts to establish electronic filing and online disclosure for statewide and legislative candidates. While some state disclosure agency are responsible for local disclosure info, local races and activities were generally not covered in this report. A more detailed explanation of the criteria used and points awarded is also available, as is a chart showing the point spread for each rating.

When judging a state's electronic filing activities, the following criteria were considered:

* Is an electronic filing program in operation?
* Is electronic filing mandatory?
* How much progress has the state made in developing its program?
* Has any legislation been introduced or passed to implement electronic filing?
* Has adequate funding for a program been provided?
* Is free software available?
* Is a standard filing format available, or in the works?

When judging a state's online disclosure efforts, the following criteria were considered:

* Does the state have any disclosure information on the the state's web site?
* Does it cover all candidates, or just a few?
* How quickly is the information published online after it is received?
* How much historical information is available?
* Does it provide itemized contributions, or just summary data?
* How much detail for itemized contributions is available?
* Is it possible to search, browse or download itemized contributions?
* How easy is it to find the disclosure agency's web site?
* How easy is it to find campaign finance data on the site?
* How well is the site designed and how user-friendly is it?

The ratings reflect the combined efforts of the legislative and executive branches of state government and the agency responsible for public disclosure to move disclosure records onto the Internet, and do not take nonprofit activities into consideration. While many nonprofit organizations across the country are doing an outstanding job of offering Internet disclosure resources, it is ultimately the responsibility of the government to provide public access to this data. Consequently, the state disclosure efforts by nonprofit organizations are not reflected in the state's evaluation.

The efforts of nonprofit organizations should not be overlooked, and have clearly had a positive impact on the overall movement toward online disclosure. Many nonprofit advocacy groups are at the forefront of state efforts to enact electronic filing laws. There is a wealth of information online from nonprofit organizations, who have been doing an effective job filling in the disclosure gap in many states.
Nonprofit state disclosure web sites are linked to from the Disclosure Links Chart.

VII. About the Digital Sunlight Award Winners

There appears to be an emerging formula for digital disclosure success. The states that won the 1999 Digital Sunlight Award have common elements in their programs. Successful programs usually result from the enactment of a state law directing the state's disclosure agency to establish a program and providing the funding needed to do so. Such laws usually phase in electronic filing and provide a reasonable implementation schedule which can operate like a strategic plan to help ensure the new program stays on track. Most states began with a voluntary electronic filing program, which helps prepare for implementation of mandatory electronic filing. States with successful programs also have had adequate time to test, develop and promote the new program before it began.

The winning states overall are doing an outstanding job of offering disclosure information online in a variety of formats. Their web sites are well designed and respectful of the average user's needs. Winning states also share another important characteristic; they are among the most populous states, which means they have more state resources and likely a greater demand for better disclosure, since larger states are usually home to more expensive political campaigns.

However, just because a state won this year's award doesn't mean they have completed the job. Nor is there any guarantee that a state won't reverse an electronic filing mandate. Hawaii, Virginia and Louisiana all have yet to enact mandatory e-filing requirements for legislators. Michigan is currently operating a voluntary e-filing program and has yet to require electronic filing of state candidates. California's big test will come in 2000, when the state's 1997 law is fully implemented. The Illinois legislature considered a last-minute repeal of its electronic filing mandate in late 1999.

VIII. Electronic Filing

Electronic filing programs get started in a number of ways -- either the legislature passes a law, the agency begins the program on its own, or one is provided for by initiative. Setting up an electronic filing program doesn't have to be expensive, but it does take dedicated staff and resources. Such programs require security, verification, training, software and hardware. The best programs provide free software for filers, and offer a standard filing format that private vendors can use with commercial campaign management software. Though it can be challenging for disclosure agencies and filers alike to transition from paper to electronic filing, in the long run this method of disclosure is more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally-friendly.

* Voluntary vs. mandatory electronic filing

Some electronic filing programs are voluntary, permitting candidates for statewide and legislative offices to file their disclosure reports in a digital format. Other states have passed laws that require electronic filing by candidates for state offices. While a voluntary program is better than none at all, it takes a mandatory program to guarantee comprehensive and timely online access to disclosure records.

Most mandatory programs require specific candidates who raise money over a certain threshold to disclose electronically. The threshold can make a big difference in determining how many reports are filed electronically and get published online. New York has the lowest threshold in the country at $1,000, virtually guaranteeing 100 percent participation. California and Oregon have the same threshold - $50,000 - but in California campaigns are generally more expensive and therefore more candidates will likely end up being required to file electronically in California than in Oregon.

Mandatory electronic filing represents a significant change in public policy, and generally requires amending disclosure laws. (Oklahoma's disclosure agency attempted to require electronic filing through regulation, only to see its requirement repealed by the legislature.) So far 17 states have some kind of mandatory electronic filing requirement. Of these states, ten have mandated electronic filing for statewide candidates, including Texas, Oregon and Missouri, which enacted mandatory electronic filing programs just this year. Currently nine states require electronic filing by both legislative and statewide candidates. The legislatures of California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Wisconsin, Texas and Oregon deserve credit for including themselves under electronic filing requirements.

Many states include PACs, lobbyists, parties and other kinds of filers under mandatory electronic filing laws as well. Electronic filing legislation is pending in many other states. Digital disclosure is an issue that has enjoyed bipartisan support across the country, with political leadership being provided by secretaries of state, governors, and legislators alike.

Many states begin with a voluntary e-filing program, which can help the disclosure agency and filers alike transition to a mandatory program. However, voluntary programs do not always result in online disclosure. For example, if only one candidate in a race files electronically, some disclosure agencies choose not to place those records online because they feel it is unfair to subject that candidate to more public scrutiny than others. Some states, like Louisiana, address this fairness issue by data-entering or scanning reports of candidates who filed on paper, so that all candidate reports are online regardless of how they filed. Voluntary electronic filing programs are most effective in states like Virginia, where disclosure advocates are encouraging filers to participate. Offering free, user-friendly software and training filers how to use it also helps encourage candidate participation.

* The need for funding

Some legislatures have adequately funded e-filing programs, others have not. Often funding is left out of voter initiatives, which appears to be holding up development of e-filing programs in Maine, Massachusetts and Colorado. Other states have begun electronic filing programs with in-house resources that later stall due to unexpected costs or a lack of funding. A total of 31 states were found to have adequate funding to advance electronic filing and online disclosure.

* Software and standard filing formats

State funding for e-filing programs often pays for the development of free or low-cost software that candidates can use to file electronically. A good software program can help lessen the filer's workload and make the filing process less burdensome. Illinois and New York report a positive response to their user-friendly software programs. Other states, including North Carolina, Missouri and Wisconsin have had problems developing e-filing software, resulting in delayed implementation of electronic filing programs.

Arizona and Minnesota offer free software with extra bells and whistles such as the ability to perform "mail merge" functions in order to generate thank-you notes to contributors. However, while enhanced programs can help entice filers, the more complex a program, the longer it is likely to take to develop it, and the more costly it may be to maintain. Many candidates have already invested in commercial campaign management software and would like to continue using it. The most simple and cost-effective solution is for states to offer free basic software and also develop a standard filing format that vendors can use to develop or modify commercial software.

With so many states advancing electronic filing, it became apparent to disclosure agencies and advocates that a universal filing format could help reduce the cost of e-filing and save agencies time and energy and avoid "recreating the wheel". In 1997, the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) began an effort to develop a universal filing format that could be adopted by state and local disclosure agencies nationwide. COGEL formed an "X-12" committee (X-12 is a standard used by industry groups to provide for standardized forms). About twenty states participated in the effort, and quickly discovered that one major impediment to a universal filing format is that different states have different disclosure requirements. The COGEL group persevered, and in early 1999 a universal format was approved, which several states and jurisdictions are planning to adopt.

States accept electronically-filed records in several different ways. Some have candidates file their reports on computer diskette. A common problem with this method is that diskettes can get damaged in transit to the disclosure agency. Other states have candidates file their reports over the Internet, either by attaching a document to an email message, or using a web-based form to submit their records. One major advantage of Internet-based electronic filing is that it is easier to get the data online immediately.

IX. Online Disclosure

States are using a variety of methods to make campaign finance data available on the Internet. While electronic filing is the ideal, states that lack or have limited electronic filing programs are still succeeding in providing online disclosure through scanning and data-entry. It's important to note that successful electronic filing program don't always result in good online disclosure. Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Minnesota all have electronic filing programs operating, but offer little or no data online.

* Itemized contributions

Every state requires candidates to publicly disclose a list of their campaign contributors. Generally, information disclosed for each campaign contribution includes: name of contributor, date of contribution, amount, and the contributor's address, occupation and employer. PACs and committees usually are required to disclose ID numbers as well. Not all itemized contributions online include this level of detail, however. States have different disclosure requirements, and some states are not publishing all the information reported for each contribution. Often the complete address is not available, either to save data entry time, or to protect a donor's privacy.

* Public disclosure and privacy rights

The California Voter Foundation has studied the issue of privacy and public disclosure and believes a good balance between these two needs can be found by redacting the street address for individual contributors, while still disclosing the contributor's city, state and zip code online. Street addresses for other types of contributors, such as PACs, parties and businesses should be disclosed online. As paper filing is phased out, disclosure experts will have to address what to do about redacted data that may not be available in another format. States might consider making a complete database of contribution information available upon request and under the condition that the data not be used for commercial purposes. In this way, reporters and others doing serious research can have their need accommodated, while at the same time protecting contributors from potential abuse from the direct marketing industry or other fundraising efforts.

* Accessing the data

Ideally, itemized contributions are available to search, browse and download. Currently, ten disclosure agency web sites offer users the ability to search, browse or download itemized campaign contributions. By making the data available in various ways, disclosure agencies ensure they can meet the public's diverse needs. The curious citizen who wants to know who's making campaign contributions to his representative may not know the representative's name. The reporter on a deadline who wants to know how much money the governor received from a particular industry group will want to quickly search the records by contributor field. The academic studying campaign finance patterns may want to download records in a tab or comma-delimited format to create an offline database. Offering these three key features -- search, browse and download -- guarantees that the data will meet the needs of a wide variety of users, from beginners to advanced.

* Availability of historic records

States are using their web sites to publish historic as well as current disclosure data. Oregon and New Jersey offer extensive data going back more than ten years. Pennsylvania has adopted the troubling policy of offering only current data, and is either blocking access to or removing electronically-filed records. There is no policy advantage to this approach. Only one other state was found to have removed files that had previously been published, and that reportedly was due to an anticipated site redesign.

* No access fees

The Digital Sunlight survey found that no states are currently charging the public to access online disclosure data. Though states don't charge users for viewing paper records, they do charge a fee -- anywhere from five cents to a dollar per page -- to copy paper records. Generally these fees are charged simply to cover copying costs, but can quickly add up depending on the scope of one's research. Some states also charge a small fee to cover the cost of making copies of reports filed on diskettes.

* Scanning and data-entry

While scanned or data-entered records are better than no records at all, there are significant limitations to using this technology to provide online disclosure. Scanned reports can only be browsed and cannot be easily searched or analyzed. Scanned reports are often difficult to read, as they are images of original paper copies that are sometimes completed in handwriting. Some states have chosen "tiff" or other less universal formats to publish scanned pages that require special plug-ins or programs in order to view. The scanned files that were easiest to view were those published in PDF, which can be viewed with the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, or as "gif" images which can be viewed in any web browser. Another drawback with scanned files is that a single report may be a few megabytes in size; downloading a lot of scanned reports may take a long time over a slow Internet connect and require considerable hard disk space. An advantage of scanned reports is that they offer a picture of the complete report exactly as it was filed.

Campaign finance data can also be data-entered and published online. This approach allows the public to browse or search the records -- an improvement over scanned files. However, typically not all the information for a record is data-entered. Often a contributor's complete address or occupation/employer information is left out due to limited staff resources. Rarely are campaign expenditures data-entered for the same reason. Data-entry can also result in typing mistakes. In addition, it is a time-consuming process that frequently results in long delays between the time the report is filed and the time the data is made available online.

* Voluntary disclosure on campaign web sites

Some candidates are beginning to disclose their campaign finance reports on their own campaign web sites. Praise should go to candidates who are active participants in the online disclosure movement. However, it's important to remember that campaign data published on a campaign web site may be incomplete, and is no substitute for official disclosure records filed with official state agencies. Voters are better served when candidates voluntarily file electronically with disclosure agencies.

* Locating online disclosure information

One of the biggest and most common problems with online disclosure information is locating it. Too often it is assumed that the public knows which agency is responsible for campaign finance disclosure. It would be helpful if state web sites included topics such as "elections" or "campaign finance records" on the index page of the state's official web site. Many state web sites provide a search engine that lets people search for and locate documents on all state agency sites. One method used to locate the state disclosure agency was to enter a search term such as "campaign contributions" or "campaign finance data". This method worked the best for locating the agency responsible for disclosure.

* Site design and performance

Once the user gets to the disclosure agency's web site, it's still not always easy to find campaign finance information. Sometimes the records are buried under a series of links, often beginning with the header, "Candidates". In Texas, candidates' disclosure reports were found under the header "Supplemental Filings". On many sites the user needs to know the name of the candidate to search for information. Some people do start at that point, but others may only know that they want to search for all candidates for governor, for example, or all candidates in a particular legislative district. Elections and disclosure are often administered by different divisions of an agency, or even entirely different agencies. This information needs to be tied together online to help people make better use of disclosure records.

Slow performance is another problem encountered with some web sites. While there are slow days on the Internet, and every web site is likely to experience technical problems or down time, there were a few states where performance was consistently slow. In Ohio, for example, it took three minutes to download 41 records over a DSL line. This kind of slow performance could be due to the speed of the connection between the agency's server and the Internet, or because of the way a database is configured. Agencies need to check how their sites perform on the Internet from a computer outside the agency to test the speed of delivery for outside users.

X. Concluding Thoughts

* Advice for digital sunlight advocates

The success of and continued progress in developing electronic filing and disclosure programs requires constant vigilance. A program that appears to be on track can quickly be derailed by its opponents. For example, just as this report was going to press, Illinois, the top-ranked state in our survey, nearly fell victim to a last-minute attempt by lawmakers to weaken the state's electronic filing law. The bill died, but not before it won the support of 40 lawmakers of both parties, including many "friends" of reform. Alert activists got wind of the pending amendment and moved fast to draw media attention to it. Several news articles and critical editorials appeared in Illinois newspapers, and the effort died. What happened in Illinois is a good example of why it is not enough to pass an electronic filing law; reform-minded activists must closely monitor implementation of digital disclosure programs and watch for attempts to weaken or repeal them.

* Suggestions for disclosure agency staff

The most successful efforts to implement an electronic filing and disclosure program were made by states that first created a comprehensive strategic plan and implementation schedule. Those states that attempted to move forward with a piecemeal approach tended to run out of money or encounter unanticipated needs or obstacles that were difficult to overcome in mid-project. States with limited or no funding for disclosure should consider successful strategies and technologies already created and innovated by better-funded states. Conducting outreach and training programs to instruct candidates and committees on how to file electronically or use a particular piece of filing software greatly increases participation in voluntary programs and support for mandatory ones.

Seeking public input on what is needed and how a project should be implemented is essential to avoid making embarrassing and costly mistakes. Agencies may want to consider seeking assistance from outside companies or groups such as universities or nonprofits to help overcome technical problems and develop an effective e-filing and Internet disclosure program.

Finally, and most importantly from the perspective of the online user, agencies need to pay more attention to how their sites are designed. It should not be necessary to be a computer expert or professional researcher to review and make use of campaign finance data on the Internet. The best approach is to offer both basic and advanced-level research tools, and to keep the design simple, clean and user-friendly.

* What it will take to move further into the digital sunlight

Those states that have been most successful with advancing digital disclosure did so with support and coordination between the disclosure agency, the governor, the legislature and the public. The cooperation of all of these vital entities can be achieved through education and information about why digital disclosure is important, how it can be achieved, and a relative understanding of what other states are doing to bring about instant online disclosure of campaign finance records. The Digital Sunlight Awards and Progress Report can serve as a resource to help all states move forward and into the digital sunlight.

Kim Alexander is the President of the California Voter Foundation. Stephen Levine is an investigative reporter and co-author of Paper Trails, a Guide to Public Records in California who serves on the California Voter Foundation's Board of Directors.

Digital Sunlight is a project of the California Voter Foundation
copyright 1999; all rights reserved.