Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Auditing Campaign Contributor Disclosure?

By

Campaign disclosure improving

But Bump lagging in reports on donors

Candidates are required by law to make efforts to report identifying information for all donors who give $200 or more, as a way to alert voters to the possible influence of special interests. Late last year, the Globe reported that statewide candidates had failed to collect the identifying information for thousands of major donors in the prior three years.

Since that article, however, compliance rates have soared, according to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance and a Globe review of 2010 campaign filings by major party candidates.

Of the 15 major candidates for statewide office, all but three had reported the information for at least 90 percent of their donors and seven had reported it for more than 97 percent of donors.

The candidate with the worst record? Suzanne M. Bump, the Democratic candidate for auditor, who had reported that information for just 61 percent of her major donors as of the end of September.

Bump told the Globe that supporters who make online donations at her website are asked to include their occupation and employer. But, according to a Globe test of the system, her website required virtually no disclosure

The Globe reviewed Bump’s campaign filings as part of a routine look at public documents that also focused on her opponent in the auditor’s race, Mary Z. Connaughton, a Republican. The documents showed that large numbers of Bump’s major contributors had provided just a name and address, while Connaughton’s filings gave the information for more than 97 percent of donors

and finally . .  .

In an interview last Monday, when the Globe asked Bump again why her disclosure rate was lower than other candidates’, she said again that she was in full compliance with the law. But, she added, “I wish that I had met a higher standard.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. I see David is letting her post be headlined but doesn’t like this verified news item. Maybe you should post this as a reply in her diary and then post your other diary about the City of Boston zapping her as a second reply.

  3. You’ve been anti-Bump since the primary, in which I believe you supported Guy Glodis, who by the way who has endorsed Bump.

    • Little scary to have JohnD commenting in support of my post. And sorry Christopher but bitter is a waste of time in politics. Candidates win or lose and voters make decisions all the time that I agree or disagree with.

      <

      p>For sure I was with Glodis and my Guy took his lumps on BMG. No issues there, Guy can be his own worst enemy at times (especially his younger days  -I think he’s grown as a person and a candidate and am proud to call him a friend)and he lost the election. Wasn’t even close.

      <

      p>I’ve known Suzanne since she was a State Rep. She’s a good person and a hard worker. My Union is in the process of endorsing her and I will vote for her.

      <

      p>But I am enjoying watching the show as Bump creates her own problems much the same way Glodis did. And enjoying the relative silence of the holier then thou Bumpites who took any issue to attack Glodis and remain silent on Bump’s problems. Unlike them, I will vote for the candidate that won the primary.

Archives