Really?

It was small ‘p’ poorly-written story in The Times-Picayune which attempted to parse out the differences between political databases, and secure voter information databases.

A better story was printed in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Companies like GCR & Associates have a strong temptation to abuse their access to secure government records to sell information services that benefit political campaigns. Companies like this leverage their access to records and applications developed in one contract to make a bigger profit in the next contract. Of course, those politicians who win elections, thanks to contractors who have access to the whole enchilada, are the same people with access to the dual pots of money — from tax dollars and campaign contributions — to award both government and campaign contracts.

Did Pennsylvania Republicans access government data indicating what should be secure anonymous voter histories and issue preferences to illegally advantage Republican candidates? Did GCR & Associates tap into that private information to benefit partisan campaigns? If so, egregious violations were committed against the fundamental democratic process of a secret ballot, and of the government securing private information.

The degree of specificity with which GCR & Associates’ Greg Rigamer can comment on voter preferences — without access to exit polls — in WWL TV election coverage should be enough to cause concern over where that information comes from, how it is being used, and who it benefits. No one should be allowed to wear multiple hats as campaign contractor, government contractor, and independent election pundit. The purposes of these roles are all in conflict with one another.

This calls for a new electronic records bill of rights, identifying specifically which electronic records should be designated as private, and which records should be designated as public.

Private electronic records should be secured. Electronic records designated as public should be broadly disseminated — as Barack Obama has promoted.

Furthermore, that very sharp, bright line between government and campaign activities should be defined by including provisions in an electronic records bill of rights which forbid companies from double-dipping by performing services for both government and political campaigns.

Update:

A simple analysis of campaign donations to Ray Nagin by GCR & Associates, or by Greg Rigamer, compared to expenditures by Ray Nagin to GCR & Associates for campaign contracts, from data obtained on the Louisiana Board of Ethics Campaign Contributions, and Campaign Expenditures Web sites:

02/21/03 2500.00 Donation
09/23/03 1000.00 Contract
04/06/05 2500.00 Donation
06/23/05 5000.00 Contract
03/10/06 9420.00 Contract
04/26/06 5500.00 Contract
06/21/06 5539.63 Contract
07/14/06 2500.00 Donation
04/03/07 2500.00 Donation
02/16/08 5000.00 Donation

Total Donations: $15,000.00
Total Contracts: $26,459.63

Note that this analysis does not include contracts awarded to GCR & Associates for government services provided to the City of New Orleans. A wistful fantasy — some day the City of New Orleans will furnish expenditures online just as Bobby Jindal has started to do on LaTrac. Then it should be possible to line up the dates and amounts of political contributions, with the dates and amounts of awarded contracts.