More than a third of the candidates running in Tuesday’s primaries do not have financial disclosures publicly available, denying voters insight into the candidates’ potential debts and conflicts of interest ahead of the election.

Federal law requires congressional candidates who raise or spend at least $5,000 to detail their assets and liabilities in a report to congressional ethics committees.

Both the House and Senate publish the disclosures online.

An OpenSecrets review of financial disclosure records shows that 116 of the 304 candidates in Tuesday’s primary had either ignored the May 15 filing deadline, sought extensions that conceal the reports until after the primaries or filed paperwork so late the disclosures were unpublished on the eve of the election.

Candidates without available financial disclosures and strong fundraising include Republican Senate candidate Matt Rosendale in Montana as well as California Democrats Herbert Lee (39th District) and Jessica Morse (Fourth District).

A spokesman for Rosendale’s campaign said the report was “in the process of being filed” — the same thing he told The National Journal two weeks ago.

A spokesman for Lee, who raised $800,000 for his campaign, said he planned to file after the primaries and pay the $200 late fee, which kicks in after a 30-day “grace period” that allows late filers to submit reports with no penalty.

In other words, candidates have until mid-June — or after voters in 26 states have cast ballots — to disclose their finances as required under the Ethics in Government Act passed in the post-Watergate era.

For voters, journalists and watchdog groups are typically the conduits in which financial disclosures are scrutinized and shared, said Adav Noti with the Campaign Legal Center.

“(The reports) are significant for assessing potential conflicts,” Noti said. “It allows a voter to assess whether candidates are taking positions that are in the voters’ interest or in the candidate’s interest.”

Say a candidate is championing tax cuts for an industry. A disclosure would show whether the person owns stake in a company in line to benefit. Whether it matters to a voter is another thing.

“That’s a decision voters have to make,” Noti said, “but the law is that the information gets out there, and people can choose what they do with it.

“It’s up to the public and their constituents to decide.”

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

OpenSecrets contacted eight candidates running in the day’s most consequential primaries whose financial disclosures were unavailable. Two of the candidates acknowledged the oversight and filed the paperwork the next day.

California Democrats Katie Hill in the 39th District and Omar Siddiqui in the 49th both e-filed Saturday after OpenSecrets contacted the candidates. Each attached dated copies in their email response.

“I apologize for our campaign’s error, which was simply a misinterpretation of the form,” Hill said. “I take transparency very seriously, and as soon as I realized the mistake I took every step to get the disclosure filed as soon as possible.”

Another candidate, Democrat Paul Moya in New Mexico’s Second District, e-filed on Monday shortly after learning the disclosure was not posted online. A spokesman said the report was mailed ahead of the May 15 deadline.

“I’m not sure why the paper submission hadn’t been processed,” said spokesman Matthew Corcoran.

OpenSecrets researched candidate filings in the eight states with June 5 primaries; there is likely more than 116 missing reports. (Don Blankenship, for example, scoffed at the disclosure law then lost in the West Virginia’s Republican primary.)

First-time candidates who overlook the disclosure deadlines, however, are not trying to skirt the law, said Pingeton with the House Clerk’s Office.

“I think a fair amount of them are honest mistakes,” Pingeton said.

“It doesn’t surprise me that a first-time candidate wouldn’t be aware of (the financial disclosure requirement),” Caleb Brown, a campaign finance attorney, said. “It’s not an obligation for challengers that immediately comes to mind because they’re so focused on raising and spending campaign funds, all of which is regulated by the FEC.”

In contrast, the disclosure requirements are handled by separate regulatory bodies — congressional ethics committees — “which are typically associated, not with challengers, but with officeholders,” Brown said.

New Jersey Republican Peter De Neufville (11th District) was the only candidate contacted by OpenSecrets who did not respond.

Forty-six incumbents had no financial reports available; 23 others filed extensions.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜