-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Data questions (and some answers) #1
Comments
|
Yes, some older files sometimes do change, but it's likely relatively rare. Here's one example. I guess she didn't go all the way back to 2010, but to 2012 url |
It does seem like there are unique identifiers for candidates, filings and offices that can be sought. There also seems to be a concept of something like election cycle which is how the reports are broken down. So, if for instance you look at the query parameters for the URL that points to all of the reports for Sandra Martinez since the last election she ran in it looks like: CandidateReportH.aspx?es=17&ot=1&o=39&c=1561&p=0&d=&ct=0&fn=Susana&ln=Martinez
The rest of the query parameters seem to just be page state things. |
On the individual report detail pages, there are similar query parameters: CandidateReportContribution.aspx?es=13&ot=1&o=39&c=1561&r=32415&p=0&d=ALL&ct=0&fn=&ln= The one to make note of here is |
Similarly with PACs, there are some things to be derived from the query parameters. On a main page for a PAC, you can get their ID from the On the Contributions & Expenditures detail pages for a given PAC, it seems like the PACcontributions.aspx?se=0&p=7255&rh=49593 PACexpenditures.aspx?se=0&p=7255&rh=49593 The big difference is if you leave the |
OK so here are some fun numbers that I got from just loading all the data into PostgreSQL and running some queries (no attempt at rooting out duplicate entries, etc so there are probably problems with these numbers). If @sandrafish & team want to take a look at these and see if they jive (in a general sense) with your understanding of what's going on in New Mexico, that would be a great sanity check. Top 20 PACs by amount spent (2010-current):
Top 20 PACs by amount received (2010-current):
Top 20 individual contributors by amount given (2010-current):
Top 20 "business" contributors by amount given (2010-current):
Top 20 Candidates by amount received (2010-current):
Top 20 candidates by amount spent (2010-current):
|
A few more random thoughts:
|
So i'm took a quick look at these PACs in a couple of different ways. If you go here and download their results as a spreadsheet, i get this for top 20 PACS contributions: And this for top 20 PACs spending: When i download all the data for PACs from here, i get vastly different results raised: And i took a specific look at the Republican Campaign Committee, coming up with 2,750,985.66 raised and 2,694,747.16 spent... so something is off for them and a couple of others there... but the full download was way off - and appears to include duplicates of some reports potentially. Then there's Act Blue, which i despise, because they are a conduit for individual donations and have the potential for tons of double-reporting. One thing i'm wondering about is whether we could filter these lists by cycle? That would be super helpful - as would filtering individual candidates by cycles. On your second list of things.... Yes, we should ask on our call tomorrow if they identify transfers, but i don't think that they do... When they file to create a committee it's a paper thing - i've got a few PDF examples... And yes, you're right that some of these PACs are created by lawmakers... but i fear this info is all on paper... You are correct that the cash on hand is entered electronically - and hoping we can get them to include this somehow... i don't think they store info about committee offices - we should ask... but it also appears to me that they keep the same id for candidates when folks move on to run for higher office. Let me know what other questions you have. |
I suspect a lot of these inconsistencies will be solved once we have unique IDs and figure out how to identify and handle corrected filings. |
Ok, so it looks like these are the main questions to ask the New Mexico Secretary of State:
|
Additionally, we will check on the status of these previous requests:
|
sounds good… sandra fish
|
That was a good call. Sounds like Kari is agreeable to our requests. Here's the revised list. @sandrafish let me know if this looks good and I'll send it over to Kari.
Alternatively, what we'd like ideally is a full export of every table in your system pertaining to campaign finance. This would mean a separate Excel or CSV file for each table. Pending information that has not been published yet could be filtered out. Between this and the list of requests above, it would likely be much cheaper and faster for the vendor to implement, leaving you with more budget to spend on other enhancements. |
Yes, that was a good call - one of the factors here is that i think they'll push to get this done soon, given that a new SoS will be elected in November. i'd move No. 1 to No. 4 and move everything else up. Tho have you tried accessing the download programmatically? (i have not, but i'm usually just looking for specific portions too) In No. 3, 4 and 5, i wouldn't begin with saying in the data download - i think these are static tables that we'd want to receive periodically - there won't be much change here on out for candidates, but there could be additional PACs hit the scene. You might also suggest that we'd be willing to talk with her and the vendor at some point if that would be helpful. |
Ok will update this and send it over. Keeping No 1 at the top is important, since it will allow us to update our site automatically. The alternative is a scraper, which is more fragile and would require additional code. |
Closing this - we've gotten what we need. |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: