| SJR 393Joint Subcommittee on 
        Campaign Finance ReformAugust 
        30, 2001, Norfolk 
 Work Session The joint subcommittee discussed 
        and agreed to a proposal that the chairman write to state law schools 
        to solicit a review of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (CFDA) as a 
        student project. The Secretary of the State Board of Elections explained 
        that the act has proven confusing, needs clarification, and could be improved. 
        The board's staff receives questions on the interpretation of the act 
        that are difficult or impossible to answer because of ambiguities and 
        inconsistencies in the act. The proposal contemplates a fresh review for 
        clarity rather than an examination of potential campaign finance reforms. 
        State Board and subcommittee staff would assist in the project. Members 
        also noted the need for a more detailed instruction book for persons required 
        to file reports under the act.  The State Board of Elections 
        presented a revised list of requested revisions and clarifications in 
        the CFDA for the subcommittee's consideration.  The subcommittee reviewed a 
        number of items brought forward at its June 27 meeting: 
         Mandatory electronic 
          filing for General Assembly candidates. 
          The State Board reported that 100-plus General Assembly candidates are 
          filing electronically for the November 2001 election. The board now 
          has three full-time employees for campaign finance work. It has a contract 
          for $22,000 for the rest of the year to meet its obligation, effective 
          January 1, 2001, to key in data filed in paper format. Its staff cannot 
          keep up with the work involved in filing, reviewing, and copying disclosure 
          forms and needs an additional full-time employee in this area. It has 
          not had time to track the staff time required for the keying in and 
          copying of paper-copy General Assembly disclosure forms. The subcommittee 
          noted that electronic filing produces cost savings and that the delay 
          in entering data from paper disclosure forms may disadvantage candidates 
          who file electronically. It also discussed the suggestion that the filing 
          forms could be simplified. Suit has been filed by an independent statewide 
          office candidate challenging the requirement that disclosure forms in 
          statewide elections be filed electronically. Applicability of CFDA 
          to towns. Prior 
          to the 2000 Census, only town elections in Blacksburg were subject to 
          the act. Under the 2000 Census, Blacksburg and Leesburg fall within 
          the 25,000 and more population class. The subcommittee asked for a breakdown 
          showing all towns of 1,000 or more population under the 2000 Census. Filings by PACs under 
          CFDA. The subcommittee 
          requested a draft to simplify the PAC filing schedule and for information 
          on active versus inactive PACs to evaluate possible electronic filing 
          requirements with a certain threshold of activity.Issue advocacy and the 
          definition of "political committee." 
          The subcommittee requested a draft to clarify that the CFDA does not 
          apply to pure issue advocacy groups. Public Hearing Representatives of the American 
        Association of University Women and League of Women Voters spoke in support 
        of campaign contribution limits, random audits of a percentage of candidate 
        campaign reports, prompt reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures, 
        and an election day holiday.  The Honorable S. Chris Jones, 
        Chairman
 Legislative Services contact: 
        Mary Spain
  THE 
        RECORD  
        
Privacy Statement 
  | Legislative Services | General 
  Assembly  |