New Video Highlights Need for Greater Access to Public Officials’ Financial Ties

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

BOSTON – Pioneer Institute believes restrictive laws regarding legislators’ and other elected officials’ Statements of Financial Interests damage the public trust. Pioneer created a new video, “Is Open Government a Priority in Your State?” to showcase its concerns and raise citizens’ awareness of these harmful laws.

Last year, Pioneer Institute released a new index rating the transparency and accessibility of each state’s Statements of Financial (or Economic) Interests (SFIs). SFIs are disclosures of sources of income that are necessary to ensure that policymakers work in the public interest, not their own interests.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission imposes onerous requirements on those seeking access to SFIs that can prohibit them from following through with requests.

Pioneer’s index reveals that, among states with procedures for reporting SFIs, Massachusetts has the lowest raw score (15 on a scale of 100). Ironically, states that commonly rank among the most politically corrupt in the country – like Illinois, Louisiana, and New York – have index scores of 90 or higher.

This video uses an imaginary example of a kickback scandal involving elected officials to compare the difficulty of obtaining SFI information in Massachusetts to the relative ease of accessing it in Mississippi.

Pioneer’s rating of states is based on seven underlying criteria: whether SFIs are available online, if the form is electronically searchable, whether reports are free for the public to access, if personal information is required for access, if an ID is required for access, whether the SFI filer is notified of each record request, and if the filer must submit records electronically.

With this new video, Pioneer hopes to inform the public about barriers to accessing Massachusetts elected officials’ financial information.

About Pioneer

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Get our MassWatch updates!

Related Posts:

Testimony – Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Testimony - Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Sunshine Week 2024

Partly Sunny with a Chance of Transparency As Pioneer Institute…

Pioneer Commends MA Governor-elect Healey’s Step Toward Greater Transparency

Pioneer Institute commends Governor-elect Maura Healey for choosing not to claim a public records exemption for the governor’s office. Governor-elect Healey also pledged to support legislation that would curb exemptions claimed by the legislative and judiciary branches of state government.

Massachusetts Needs a Comprehensive Performance Management Framework

/
Many states have made promoted government efficiency and effectiveness by setting goals and tracking their progress. Massachusetts tried making a performance structure, but in 2014 it was discontinued. Today, the state lacks a comprehensive structure to track progress.

School-Age Population Remains Steady, but Boston Struggles With Declining Enrollment

/
Hopefully, new leadership will ensure that the system makes the changes necessary to improve public education in Boston. Otherwise, enrollment declines will continue. 

New Report: Massachusetts Maintains Reasonable Debt Relative to GSP

/
Massachusetts has more debt than any New England state. Can we afford to pay it off or will we hand it down to future generations?

New Hampshire Tax Burden Dramatically Less than Massachusetts

/
New Hampshire collects less than half the amount of taxes per capita as Massachusetts. How do they do it, and which strategy produces better outcomes?

Looming Budget Crisis Reveals MBTA’s Dependency on Federal Funds

/
The MBTA is about to lose federal funding at a critical moment when ridership has not yet recovered. Will the state make up the difference?