States Graded on Disclosure 101

by Mike Hall, Nov 16, 2007

Do you want to know what kind of economic subsidies or tax breaks that big-box store in your town received from the state? Or how much the plant down river that’s belching noxious fumes spent lobbying state lawmakers?

A new study by Good Jobs First finds your chances of tracking down that information depend on where you live. The State of State Disclosure reports that many state governments are using the Internet to improve their ability to make such information available to residents. But others have far to go before the  public gets easy access to information about where their tax dollars go and which corporations are flexing the most lobbying muscle.

The report shows that corporate tax breaks and data on other economic development subsidies are the most difficult information to find online. Disclosure on procurement contracts and lobbying activities is somewhat more easily accessed.

Greg LeRoy, Good Jobs First executive director, says:

The Internet makes possible an unprecedented level of government transparency and public participation. But many states have been slow to adopt vigorous online disclosure, especially with respect to economic development subsidies. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia still provide no systematic online subsidy disclosure.

The study used three criteria to grade each state: ease of searching, level of detail and

the scope and timeliness of available information. Researchers then assigned each state school-like grades. Most states would not want to take their report cards home. Says Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principle author of the report:

The average state gets a grade of only B-minus in contract disclosure and C-minus in lobbying disclosure. On subsidies, given the large number of states that scored 0, the average grade is an F. No state receives better than a B across all three categories.

The highest overall grades went to Connecticut and Indiana, both of which earned Bs, and New York and Nebraska, which earned B-minuses. Three states flunked Disclosure 101: Wyoming, West Virginia and Alabama.

The report offers several suggestions to make it easier for the public to find information and to hold companies accountable, including:

• Enhance subsidy and contract disclosure to include data on outcomes. For example, subsidy disclosure should reveal how many jobs (with what wage rates, benefits, etc.) were created by subsidized companies, and contract disclosure should indicate how well the vendor company carried out its responsibilities.

• Enhance subsidy and contract disclosure to include data on the past performance of companies. This could include track records on environmental, workplace and consumer protection compliance, as well as the existence of any tax liens.

• Combine disclosure about subsidies, contract awards and lobbying with data on state campaign contributions by the companies involved or their top executives.

		Become a Fan on Facebook			Follow Us on Twitter			Subscribe to YouTube			Subscribe to Blog RSS

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (0)