Following the money is easier than you might think

When reporters daydream in journalism school, they often picture themselves working for large metropolitan daily papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. But after graduation they often find themselves at the local paper, pounding out government stories about county boards, state legislatures and zoning commissions. Some reporters may see this glass as half empty, but it actually may be overflowing with unseen news opportunities.

There are hundreds of reporters crowding Washington, but there are only a few journalists covering these local beats, giving reporters exclusivity on their stories and creative control of their news approach. Though Beltway scandals may jam the Sunday morning talk shows, ways to create a stir in your local town still exist. Just by looking at campaign contributions and personal financial disclosures, then following the money trail, reporters can create a new angle on state and local politics.

Financial disclosures - often referred to as statements of economic interest or outside interest reports - give the average reporter a blueprint for each lawmaker's assets, stocks and outside employment. These documents, filed annually in most cases, when compared with legislative records, also provide journalists with the ability to pinpoint potential conflicts of interest.

At the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to investigative journalism, we spent two years collecting financial disclosure statements filed by legislators nationwide in an effort to study ethics at the state level. After entering more than 7,400 of these public filings into a 50,000-record database, the Center released a study that found startling trends. For instance, more than one in five lawmakers sat on a legislative committee that regulated their professional or business interest. Likewise, at least another 18 percent had financial ties to businesses or organizations that lobby state government.

The Center maintains this database of outside financial interest for state lawmakers, as well as copies of the disclosure reports dating to 1999 in the "State Projects" section of its Web site (www.publicintegrity.org).

By employing this data, local reporters can uncover stories that go largely unreported in their states. The Center's report, "Our Private Legislatures," details ethical concerns in each of the 50 states, and reporters have used the financial data to find conflicts of interest.

One told of how a North Carolina state lawmaker who owns interests in two tobacco warehouses pushed for half of the state's $4.6 billion tobacco settlement to go to tobacco-dependent communities. Another explained how four North Dakota legislators sponsored bills to appropriate millions of dollars to fund research for companies in which they owned stock. Similar conflicts of interest exist in most statehouses because most state lawmakers have second jobs and often address legislation that deals with their business interests.

Another underreported subject on the state and local levels is lobbying. The Center reported so-called influence peddling on the state level in "The Fourth Branch." This online study also features a database of all of the groups registered to employ lobbyists in 2000. The Center found, in that year alone, more than 36,000 special interests signed up to hire lobbyists in the states. The report also found that individual lobbyists outnumber legislators by a margin of at least a 6 to 1. The expenditures by these lobbyists topped $565 million. Most states have listings of registered lobbyists and their employers available from the secretary of state's office, elections division or ethics agency.

Another key component of investigating local politics is campaign contributions at all levels. The story possibilities are countless for every elected office, from folks running for the White House on down to county commissioner positions. When I was working at a county paper in Virginia, I noticed a large number of donations going to the local sheriff. Upon review of campaign finance disclosures, I noticed many people being deputized were showing up as the law enforcer's largest campaign contributors. In the end, more than half of the deputy sheriffs gave more than $100,000, sparking allegations that the sheriff was selling badges.

Similar stories are just waiting to be found in the records at the offices of your state board of elections. Campaign contributions being made to those running for state office can be found online at the National Institute of Money and Politics (http://www.followthemoney.org ). The Institute, a nonprofit located in Helena, Montana, tracks campaign contributions made to state elections and maintains a database dating from the current election cycle back to 1997 for many states. This data can inform any story for local reporters covering state elections.

One of the best resources for tracking donations to federal elections is the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org), which maintains a database of all such campaign contributions dating back to the 1990 election cycle. While elections of congressmen, senators and the president may seem to go beyond the local beat, there are many applications that pertain to local politics.

Using CRP's zip code search, you can see who is making the key contributions in your area. All you have to do is drop the zip codes of your county or district into the online search engine and you can see who is making the greatest impact in the upcoming race for a federal office. Is your county supporting George Bush or the Democratic candidates? A quick search will tell.

While nonprofits like the Institute and CRP are great for tracking hard money donations, there is still a part missing from the campaign finance picture. Soft-money political-action committees called "527s" make large donations to those running for state and local offices. There are more than 18,000 of these soft-money conduits for campaign cash, and they often operate under the radar of most reporters because they are tracked by the Internal Revenue Service. You can find out which ones apply to your local candidates by going to the IRS's 527 Web site (http://eforms.irs.gov). Another way to track soft money is through donations and expenditures by state committees. For example, the Center for Public Integrity found that during the 2000 elections, Democratic and Republican state party committees raised $570 million, with 46 percent coming from soft money transfers from national party organizations. The transfers of unregulated soft money from federal party committees to their state counterparts confirm a commonly held perception that state parties are used to launder soft money and influence presidential and congressional elections in a way never envisioned or intended by federal election law. To find out what transfers were taking place in your state, go to the Center's Web site, and click on "State Secrets."

With the advent of the Internet and online resources such as those listed above, the landscape of local investigative journalism has been changed forever. Today's reporters covering state and local elections have set higher standards for political news. By examining the complete circle of money in politics, you can be better informed about what really motivates certain legislation and become a more diligent watchdog in your community.