State Election Campaign Fund Office of Campaign and Political Finance
April 1, 2015 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
source
“However, there are still variances in the fund balances recorded by different agencies.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of the public fund that gives limited campaign financing to eligible candidates running for statewide office in Massachusetts.
“The SECF provides limited public financing to eligible candidates seeking statewide elective offices.”
State law required the Auditor to review the fund after a statewide election year and report on the fund’s accounts and transactions.
“Chapter 10, Section 42C, of the Massachusetts General Laws requires the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) to conduct a post-audit of all accounts and transactions involving the state election campaign fund for any year in which elections are held for statewide elective office and . . . publish a report of any post-audit required by this section on or before April 1 of the year following any year in which elections are held for statewide elective office.”
If the fund balance is wrong, candidates could receive the wrong amount of public money, and the fund could earn the wrong amount of investment income.
“As a result, candidates for statewide elections eligible to receive state election campaign funds may not receive the appropriate amounts from this fund.”
Taxpayers help fund this account through a voluntary state tax return check-off, so accurate accounting matters to people who contribute and to the public elections process.
“The SECF’s principal source of revenue is voluntary contributions by individuals filing state income tax returns.”
The main unresolved problem was inaccurate fund balances; the earlier problem with missing candidate expenditure forms was resolved.
“Our current audit showed that improvements were still needed in periodically reconciling the total fund balance between state agencies to ensure its accuracy.”
The Auditor recommended regular reconciliations and better communication among the agencies involved, and OCPF said it would create a process to meet with the agencies about the balance.
“OCPF should implement a formalized fund balance reconciliation process, comprising OCPF, OST, and OSC records, to ensure the accuracy of the fund balance.”
This was not a new issue: auditors had found unreconciled balance problems before, and they continued through multiple election cycles.
“This has been an ongoing issue through the past two election cycles.”
SECF means the State Election Campaign Fund, OCPF is the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, MMARS is the state accounting system, and MMDT is the investment account used by the Treasurer.
“The SECF is processed in MMARS, using DOR’s monthly taxpayer contribution receipt information, OCPF’s candidate disbursement information, and OST’s monthly investment income information.”
11 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Did not comply Were the SECF’s accounting records complete, accurate, and up to date?
- Complied Did the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) complete fund disbursements for the 2014 election in compliance with regulations, including certifying candidates and qualifying amounts and properly recording disbursements and reversions?
- Complied Were required candidate and OCPF forms properly completed in compliance with state finance regulations and maintained on file?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Candidates for statewide elections may not receive the appropriate amounts, and inaccurate investment balances could cause the fund to earn too much or too little interest.
Standard: Chapter 10, Section 42C, of the Massachusetts General Laws; Chapter 11, Section 12, of the General Laws ( Chapter 10, Section 42C, of the Massachusetts General Laws; Chapter 11, Section 12, of the General Laws )
3 recommendations
- OCPF should implement a formalized fund balance reconciliation process, comprising OCPF, OST, and OSC records, to ensure the accuracy of the fund balance.agency: disagreed
- Communication among the agencies should be improved in regard to the fund balances and variances identified.
- Reconciliations should be completed at least quarterly in each non-election year and monthly in the statewide election year to ensure the accuracy of the fund balance invested during the election cycle and the fund balance for the statewide election distributions.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "OCPF disagrees that it should be the implementing agency of such a process, but in the interest of accuracy, it will create a process that includes a quarterly request in non-election years to all interested agencies to meet and ensure that the fund balance is accurate."
Auditor: "Based on its response, OCPF is taking the necessary measures to address our concern and should collaborate with OST and OSC to resolve this issue fully."
Prior findings revisited
"Prior Audit Finding Unresolved—Inaccurate State Election Campaign Fund Balance"
"This issue has been resolved."
More audits of this entity
Other Office of the State Auditor reports on State Election Campaign Fund Office of Campaign and Political Finance , including the prior audits referenced above.
- Audit of the State Election Campaign Fund - Office of Campaign and Political Finance (March 31, 2023)State Agency / Office · March 31, 2023
- Audit of the State Election Campaign Fund - Office of Campaign and Political FinanceState Agency / Office · April 1, 2019