ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index
How well is money in politics regulated and disclosed?
Dimensions
Contributions
66.7% · 2/3| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| CONT.1Contribution limit framework codifiedIf contribution limits exist, are they set by statute (not administrative discretion)? If no limits, is that absence explicit in statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |
| CONT.2Independent expenditure rulesAre independent-expenditure rules (third-party spending separate from candidate committees) codified in statute? | 1/1100.0% | § 1628 codifies independent-expenditure reporting: $500-threshold late-contribution/independent-expenditure report within 24 hours via telegram/mailgram/overnight/fax, with confirmation duty on the supervisor. “any person making an independent expenditure” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| CONT.3Anonymous-contribution treatmentAre anonymous contributions (cash below the threshold, etc.) addressed in statute with a defined disposition (returned, forfeited, etc.)? | 1/1100.0% | § 1634(b) codifies anonymous-contribution disposition: 'It shall be unlawful for any candidate or political committee to disburse money received from an anonymous source. All such money shall be handed over to the State Treasurer within twenty (20) days of its receipt.' Defined-disposition (forfeit to State Treasurer) within defined timeframe. “All such money shall be handed over to the State Treasurer within twenty (20) days of its receipt” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
Disclosure
60.0% · 3/5| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| DISC.1Disclosure threshold in statuteIs the disclosure threshold (amount above which contributions must be reported) defined in statute, not regulation? | 1/1100.0% | § 1626(a) codifies statutory disclosure thresholds: full report required at >$250 receipts/expenditures, sworn statement at $250 or less; § 1626(b)(1)-(2) codifies the $250/$50 contributor-identity disclosure tiers in statute. “two hundred fifty dollars ($250)” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| DISC.2Enumerated filing scheduleIs the filing schedule (pre-election, post-election, quarterly, etc.) enumerated in statute with specific deadlines? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 912.2 codifies minor-party nomination requirements; not the filing schedule. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| DISC.3Disclosure of contributor identityDoes statute require contributor name, address, occupation, and employer be disclosed for contributions above the threshold? | 2/2100.0% | § 1626(b)(1) codifies the full-identity disclosure tier for contributors >$250 in aggregate: 'full name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer, if any, or the principal place of business, if self-employed'. Full identity (name + address + occupation + employer) codified. “occupation and name of employer, if any, or the principal place of business” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| DISC.4Public access to filingsAre campaign-finance filings legally required to be publicly accessible online within a defined time of filing? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |
Enforcement
25.0% · 1/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENF.1Penalty schedule codifiedAre penalties for campaign-finance violations defined in statute with specified amounts (civil) and/or criminal grades? | 1/250.0% | § 1635 codifies an independent-audit framework: every two years the SoS contracts a CPA via competitive bid, lottery-selects 3% of public offices for audit, with findings on possible Act violations. Civil enforcement framework codified, but no criminal grades for campaign-finance violations are codified in the surfaced text. “(a) Every two (2) years, the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall contract for the services” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| ENF.2Enforcement body independenceIs the enforcement body (election commission, attorney general, campaign-finance regulator) appointed by multi-branch process and protected from in-cycle political control? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 913 codifies filing place/time and filing fees; not enforcement-body independence. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| ENF.3Private right of actionDoes statute provide a private right of action (citizen or party suit) for campaign-finance violations? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |
Foreign Source
25.0% · 1/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOR.1Foreign-source prohibitionIs direct foreign contribution to a candidate or campaign committee prohibited by statute? | 1/1100.0% | § 1633(a) codifies an unlawful-contribution rule applying to 'any National or State bank, or any corporation, incorporated under the laws of this or any other state or any foreign country or any unincorporated association' from making campaign contributions or expenditures. § 1634(c) further caps any-country currency contributions at $100. Direct foreign prohibition codified. “any corporation, incorporated under the laws of this or any other state or any foreign country” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| FOR.2Indirect / pass-through foreign rulesAre indirect foreign-source channels (foreign nationals via domestic entities, foreign-controlled LLCs, etc.) addressed in statute? | 0/20.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 410 codifies the machine-inspector oath ('not directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager on the result'); not foreign-source channels. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| FOR.3Foreign-source verificationAre campaign committees required by statute to verify contributors are not foreign-source (vs. relying on contributor self-attestation alone)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 1803-A is repealed/expired. | § view source 2026-05-12 |
Traceability
50.0% · 1/2| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRACE.1Records-retention requirementAre campaign committees required by statute to retain records (contributor lists, expenditure documentation, bank statements) for a defined period? | 1/1100.0% | § 1622(c) codifies the records-retention requirement: 'All such records shall be retained by the candidate or treasurer for a period of three (3) years after such information is reported as required by this act.' Defined retention period for candidate/treasurer records. “All such records shall be retained by the candidate or treasurer for a period of three (3) years after such information is reported” | § view source 2026-05-12 |
| TRACE.2Audit accessAre campaign-committee records subject to mandatory audit (post-election random sample, threshold-triggered audit, or routine cycle) under statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute. | no FTS match 2026-05-12 |