In 2011, the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission assessed $7 million worth of fines for campaign finance violations. But because the commission, formerly known as the Georgia State Ethics Commission, couldn’t afford to send out notices by certified mail, fines against politicians, officials, and parties were cut to a total of around $1 million.

The inability of the commission to pay for a service essential to its duties is, to Georgia Senator Doug Stoner (D-Smyrna), indicative of a larger issue. The disgust was obvious in Stoner’s voice as he explained how the state of Georgia gave up $6 million in revenue. “The fact that the ethics commission could not send out certified mail should tell you that we have a problem,” Stoner said.

In response, Stoner is proposing an overhaul package that would mean a dramatic upgrade in how the state polices its political spending.

Under Stoner’s plan a new ethics commission would be created, one that operates independent of the executive branch – which currently arranges the commission’s makeup through the governor’s appointments – and the legislature, which sets its budget. One bill would give the state’s supreme and appellate courts the power to select commissioners; a companion bill would guarantee steady funding for the commission.

The commission’s budget, like those of other state agencies, has faced dramatic cuts in recent years. But Stoner says the cuts have been too deep, and can create the appearance of impropriety, pointing out the recent coincidence of a large cut levied at the same time the commission investigated a past speaker of the house.

Stoner (pictured, right) says there’s no proof that budget cuts have been targeted to protect individual lawmakers. “But it doesn’t really matter,” he said. “The public perception is that that’s what happened.”

The commission currently operates on an annual budget of about $1 million, a nearly 50 percent decrease from its highest level. Stoner’s bill would guarantee the commission a funding level of 0.01 percent of the state’s total expenditure — which would grant the ethics board $1.4 million a under the current budget — and make its funding invulnerable to the legislature’s impulses.

“Does it make sense for us to be overseeing this — our own ethics?” Stoner asked rhetorically. “In that sense, it’s vulnerable to us cutting the budget at whim.”

Stoner’s bill will first need to make it through the Senate committee process, at which point it will move on to the House of Representatives. Stoner thinks it’s obvious that Georgia needs an independent, fully funded ethics commission, and issued a preemptive challenge to the bills’ opponents.  

“Anyone that’s saying we shouldn’t do it,” Stoner said, “to me, they’re going to have a hard time explaining to the public why we’re not.”

South Dakota Representative Jon Hansen thinks transparent campaign financing is worth more than $50 a day. That’s the fine that the state assesses campaigns for late reports, with a maximum total penalty of $3,000.

But Hansen (R-Dell Rapids) doesn’t like that wealthy campaigns can just put off filing a report until they see fit — or, in some cases, until after a nomination or election.

“In South Dakota our filing deadlines, as they are, are very close to an actual election,” Hansen said. “And that makes sense on one level, because you want to be able to see as many contributors to a candidate’s campaign as possible. But it does make it easy to say, ‘Oops, I forgot to file,’ and just wait until after an election to file a report.”

Hansen (pictured, right) thinks it’s critical that citizens are given a chance to review who is funding a campaign, and how a candidate is spending those funds. In the past, candidates have chosen to pay down fines in order to avoid filing, or simply not paid at all: In some cases, the secretary of state’s office has been forced to hire collections agencies to get candidates to pay fines they owe.

To try and remedy what Hansen views is an inadequate penalty for lax accounting, he proposed HB 1112, a bill that would disqualify potential candidates who have failed to file a campaign finance report. Under the proposal, the secretary of state’s office would not certify a candidate who had an outstanding report due. Last week, Hansen’s bill passed through the House State Affairs Committee — “one of the most difficult committees to get a bill out of,” he said — by a vote of 9-4, which the freshman representative saw as a good sign that the bill will become law.

After some discussion of the measure, Hansen agreed to add an amendment that would exempt accounting errors which are discovered after the fact, saying that the bill was not meant to create a “gotcha situation.” Instead, it was an attempt to force greater responsibility from political candidates and their campaign bank accounts.

“There’s a big movement — there’s always been a large movement to increase the openness in government,” Hansen said. “Any time you can do that, you’ll create more public trust.”

Unfortunately, Hansen was badly outnumbered by legislative colleagues who like things the way they are: On Monday, the South Dakota House of Representatives voted down the bill, 65-4. After the bill was voted down, Hansen would not give up on the proposal, saying he would rework the bill and enter it again during the next session.