Access to state-level campaign finance information has improved dramatically since 2003 due to the increase in electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports, according to Grading State Disclosure 2008. The report, released recently, represents the fifth nationwide assessment of state campaign disclosure laws and practices conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project.

Washington State earned an A in 2008 and has ranked first in each of the five Grading State Disclosure studies. California and Michigan also earned As in 2008. Tennessee earned the distinction of being the most improved state since 2003 and Montana improved the most in the last year.

The Campaign Disclosure Project seeks to bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics. The project is a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies, and the UCLA School of Law and is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

"Electronic filing has a direct impact on access to campaign data and how useful that data is online," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "State disclosure agencies are far more likely to present campaign finance data in ways that allow the public to search, sort and download the information when disclosure reports are initially filed electronically in a digital format."

In the 2008 assessment, 40 states earned a passing grade and 10 failed. Twenty-four states earned grades in the A or B range, up from just two awarded five years ago. Thirty-six states have improved their grades since 2003 and 26 improved over last year's assessment. The driving force behind the improvements has been the increase in the number of states requiring that candidates file disclosure reports electronically. Twenty-four states now require both statewide and legislative candidates to file electronically, up from 12 in 2003. In all, 42 states permit candidates to file electronically, 30 of which require electronic filing by some candidates.

"It is very encouraging that so many states have improved, both in the last year and since the first assessment in 2003," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. "Obviously, the fact that ten states failed is disappointing, but voters in most states have far better access to disclosure records than when this project started, even in some failing states."

The Campaign Disclosure Project evaluates, grades, and ranks each state in four categories: campaign disclosure laws; electronic filing programs; public access to campaign finance data; and disclosure web site usability. The Grading State Disclosure study shows which states provide the best access to disclosure data, areas where states could better serve voters, and suggestions for improvement.

Among the study's significant findings:

• States with the strongest campaign disclosure programs, by rank, are: Washington (1st); California (2nd); Michigan (3rd); Oregon (4th); Florida and Virginia (tied for 5th); Hawaii and Missouri (tied for 7th); Colorado (9th); and New Jersey (10th).
• States with the weakest campaign disclosure programs, by rank, are: New Mexico (41st); Nebraska (42nd); Vermont (43rd); Mississippi (44th); Nevada (45th); Delaware (46th); North Dakota (47th); South Dakota (48th); Alabama (49th); and Wyoming (50th).
• Tennessee earned a B and ranked 13th in 2008, and was the most improved state since 2003, when the state earned an F and ranked 46th. Montana improved the most since 2007, earning its first passing grade and posting campaign finance data online for the first time in 2008.
• Thirty-nine states offer the public searchable, online databases of campaign contributions; 93 percent of the states that require electronic filing provide such databases, while just 38 percent of the states with no electronic filing program do so.

"Our Web site usability tests found that two-thirds of