DN Editorial: Duly unreported

IN 1978, Pennsylvania passed a campaign-finance law that was a great leap forward. Though it placed no limit on the amount of contributions a candidate could receive, it did set up a regular schedule of public disclosure of who gave what to whom.

Money talks - and when bankrolling candidates, it sometimes shouts. So it is important to know the source of the cash.

Before the law, candidates for public office in the state did not have to file any information on money raised or spent before an election. After the election, candidates for state offices - state House, Senate, etc. - had to file only in their home counties. It was an effective way to draw the curtain over the influence of money.

We were living in the precomputer age, in 1978. The reports had to be typed on a typewriter. Some of them were handwritten. Once completed, they were sent to Harrisburg or the county offices via snail mail.

The fact that it was such a labor-intensive job was one reason the Legislature limited the number of reports that had to be filed to eight in a year.

A lot has changed in the ensuing 37 years. Software is available to generate reports. Some county agencies (Philadelphia's Board of Ethics is one) offer free campaign-reporting software. Campaign treasurers can send reports, via the Internet, directly to local election bureaus.

At the same time, the amount of money spent on campaigns has escalated. In 1978, an incumbent in the state House seat spent an average of $7,500 on his or her campaign. Today, there are million-dollar races for House and Senate seats and multimillion races for governor, U.S. Senate and mayor.

So why do we still have a prehistoric reporting system?

This year's mayor's race is a case in point. The last report that the candidates filed was on Feb. 2, and it covered the money raised and spent the previous year. The next report is not due to be filed until May 8, just 11 days before the May 19 primary.

Talk about dark money.

For the past four months, no one has had access to campaign records that disclose contributors and expenditures. It's not just idle curiosity to want to know more about a candidate's finances. It's a tool to assess a candidate: his level of support, range of contributors and where special-interest money is being funneled.

In an ideal world, the state Legislature would change the law and require more frequent disclosure - even weekly disclosure in the run-up to an election.

Unfortunately, we do not have an ideal Legislature. It has barely touched the 1978 law since it became law.

In Philadelphia, the situation is different. There is nothing to stop the Election Board from requiring candidates to make more frequent disclosures - as long as it enforces the state deadlines as well.

City Council members could pass a law - how about the Campaign Transparency Act of 2015? - that sets additional deadlines and (while they're at it) stiffens fines for violators.

Council may not have a big appetite for campaign-finance reform, but it has managed in the past few years to enact measures on contribution limits, lobbyist reporting regulations and the creation of the Board of Ethics that prove that it can get things done in this area.

Making reports more frequent would also allow the Ethics Board to do its job and vet the reports for violations.

This is the digital age. There is no reason to have Stone Age election laws.