Disclosure forms are important. Sometimes, even secondary information can be important. But it can take a lot of work to get behind the information that appears on disclosure forms. And when you do get behind the information, it can look real ugly, even if it's completely legal.

Here's a good example from the WNYC radio website last week. The same address showed up 14 times on a candidate's campaign contribution disclosure forms, so the reporter visited the address. It turned out to be leased by the NY State Thruway Authority (the Thruway is the state's big toll road). But the contributions weren't from Thruway employees.

The law on limiting campaign expenditures has been changing over the past couple of years. But the law on limiting campaign contributions has not. The standard in many instances is more liberal than with campaign expenditures, in others it is the same. And the application of the standard is highly contextual. A law in one jurisdiction, or at a particular time, might be constitutional, while in another jurisdiction, or at a different time, it is not.

Contribution limits are an important part of government ethics, because contributions from those doing business with local governments, often called "legal bribery," are a major source of the belief people have that government officials can be bought. Removing this appearance of impropriety is a principal goal of public campaign financing programs.

The state of the law on limiting and banning campaign contributions from, and their solicitation by, restricted sources, including contractors and lobbyists, as well as their principals and immediate family members, is well summarized in the Second Circuit's decision in Green Party v. Garfield (July 13, 2010).

I don't normally deal with purely campaign finance issues, but this gambit is too good (or too bad) to pass by. The perpetrator of the gambit is our old friend Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ.

What responsibility does a candidate have to check on those who make contributions to his or her campaign? Is there a greater responsibility when the candidate is running for a law enforcement position, from sheriff to D.A. to judge?

These questions were raised with respect to a situation in Dallas County, where the sheriff accepted large contributions from two convicted felons, according to an article in Sunday's Dallas Morning News.

I hate to see people resign with statements such as this, as typical as they are:

While I have been assured that I have violated no existing code, ordinance or statute, I cannot permit my integrity — and, by insinuation, Councilwoman Hermann’s — to be attacked.

Sadly, these are the words of a former Kansas City (MO) ethics commission member, according to an article in the Kansas City Star. The EC member had given a contribution to a mayoral candidate, and it became controversial, even though there is no rule barring campaign contributions from EC members.

There's a good opinion piece by Austin American-Statesman columnist Jason Embry this week on the political use of ethics complaints. The instances of abuse of the ethics process is what has led many jurisdictions to prohibit any mention of filing an ethics complaint and to prohibit the filing of ethics complaints within sixty or so days of an election.