The state scored a grade of "C+," and ranked 10th overall in a recent nationwide study that compares campaign finance disclosure laws.

ELECTION 2004

BUSH VISIT • Bush tries to tap every last vote • Bush visit photo gallery • Transcript of Bush's remarks • See the video from 9News More Election 2004 headlines

The performance was an improvement from last year, when the California-based Campaign Disclosure Project gave Kentucky a "C-" and an overall rating of 13th.

"Kentucky was one of the few states that told us that they responded directly to our study last year," Saskia Mills, executive director of California Voter Foundation, said. "Kentucky really showed an interest in our study and in what makes a disclosure Web site usable to the public."

The report was part of a three-year study called the Grading State Disclosure. It's put out by the Campaign Disclosure Project, which is a joint effort by the California Voter Foundation, Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law. Its financing comes from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

It graded each state based on four categories: strength of campaign finance disclosure laws, usability of state finance disclosure Web sites, electronic filing and the public's access to campaign finance information.

Kentucky tied with Alaska for 10th place overall.

After Washington state - which came in first for the second year in a row - the rest of the top 10 were: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas.

Meanwhile, the states rated in the bottom 10 were: Nevada, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Vermont, Alabama, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wyoming - its second consecutive year in last place.

Kentucky's major drawback, under the study's criteria, was that it doesn't require all political candidates to file cash reports electronically. Information on candidates who file their reports on paper can take up to 10 days before they're available online, the report found.

However, Kentucky's overall campaign finance law was one of its strengths, according to the study. And, the public's ability to access candidates' finance reports also ranked fairly high.

"Kentucky's strength in accessibility of campaign finance records is its comprehensive searchable database of contributions."

The state's biggest gains from 2003 were in the usability of its Web site maintained by the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, according to the study. The registry collects and maintains candidates' campaign finance records.

One addition to the site was that it provides overview information for statewide and legislative candidates. For example, it allows users to see how much money was spent in certain races, and can be sorted in different ways.

The site also offers an online tutorial for people to learn how to use the online searchable database.

John Rogers, the registry's chairman, said he takes the rankings seriously. The registry's staff have tried to "fine tune" the Web site's usability.

"It wasn't a tremendous jump, but it put us in the top 10," he said.

While he'd like to see Kentucky move ahead with more electronic filing, it probably isn't possible to require all candidates for every political office to file their campaign finance information electronically.

On the Web:

Campaign Disclosure Project:
http://www.campaigndisclosure.org

Kentucky Registry of Election Finance:
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kref/krefhome.htm