opendisclosure
opendisclosure copied to clipboard
openoakland
Candidate's who don't file: explanation on their page
Not having contributions is the biggest point of this page.
Three things:
A. Let's draw the eye to the explanation paragraph.
- Bigger type face.
- Heavier weight (bold).
B. Make it less formal?
From
The candidate had not reported any campaign contributions by the last filing deadline. Candidates are not required to report if they have raised less than $1,000.
To
John Smith's campaign hasn't reported any contributions as of DATE, the last filing deadline. Candidates aren't required to report if they raise less than $1,000.
C. Move it to where you'd normally look for results.
- Put it where the list of contributions would normally go, below the line.
@elinaru looks good to me but didn't Patrick McCullough report like a $100 contribution the last reporting period? In the January filing I think? @mikeubell do you know?
When I looked yesterday he had an e document but it said that his ID was pending. Do you know what that means?
On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:43 AM, lla2105 [email protected] wrote:
@elinaru looks good to me but didn't Patrick McCullough report like a $100 contribution the last reporting period? In the January filing I think? @mikeubell do you know?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
Small revision based on Phil's feedback:
- Removed duplicate no contributions note in the right column
- Even with no financial data, we can display the date they declared their candidacy and when the data was last updated.
He contributed $100 of his own money in 2013.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Elina Ru [email protected] wrote:
Small revision based on Phil's feedback: [image: opendisclosure-candidate-no_money2] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/6467815/4221963/cdbf868c-390e-11e4-95c6-40b70525d41c.jpg
- Removed duplicate no contributions note in the right column
- Even with no financial data, we can display the date they declared their candidacy and when the data was last updated.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openoakland/opendisclosure/issues/285#issuecomment-55150165 .
John C. Osborn Digital Communications Manager EdSource 707-845-7332 www.johncosborn.com @bayreporta Flickr: thereporta
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. In accordance with Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.§§ 2510-2521.
Would a "n days ago" work nicely with the the last updated date? Saves me doing math in my head...
We don't track filing deadlines -- that would have to be another thing manually kept up-to-date -- so I propose we drop "the last filing deadline" from the header copy and use the most-recent data date instead.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Phil Wolff [email protected] wrote:
Would a "n days ago" work nicely with the the last updated date? Saves me doing math in my head...
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openoakland/opendisclosure/issues/285#issuecomment-55151385 .
@mikeubell @tdooner @KyleW Can we add this $100 that McCullough raised in the last filing period to the table ?
@evanwolf I don't think "n days ago" would work best if I understand correctly - @elinaru I line the green bar date but it would require we change the date every time a new deadline has passed - maybe less work and more automation would be to just have it always be the current date? The data feed is pretty consistent and up to date so it should be obvious if a candidate does file an amendment or new filings. So it would just say: "Candidates's campaign hasn't reported any contributions as of TODAY's DATE." @elinaru what do you think?
Do you know why his campaign id is “pending”? We could hack something in, but it would be better if he appeared in the normal data flow. On Sep 10, 2014, at 4:09 PM, lla2105 [email protected] wrote:
@mikeubell @tdooner @KyleW Can we add this $100 that McCullough raised in the last filing period to the table ?
@evanwolf I don't think "n days ago" would work best if I understand correctly - @elinaru I line the green bar date but it would require we change the date every time a new deadline has passed - maybe less work and more automation would be to just have it always be the current date? The data feed is pretty consistent and up to date so it should be obvious if a candidate does file an amendment or new filings. So it would just say: "Candidates's campaign hasn't reported any contributions as of TODAY's DATE." @elinaru what do you think?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
@mikeubell I'm looking into the "pending" classification right now and hopefully will have answer for you soon
@mikeubell so the "pending" classification just means that the State FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) has not given him an official campaign committee I.D. or he hasn't applied for one with the state yet. But the $100 he contributed to himself still counts as a valid campaign contribution.
@lla2105 - So, do we need a alternate banner text for pending? If yes, can you suggest --
makes things tricky since we link things up by the ID. I guess we could fudge it by assigning a fake one. Does his data even appear in the netfile info?
On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:49 AM, lla2105 [email protected] wrote:
@mikeubell so the "pending" classification just means that the State FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) has not given him an official campaign committee I.D. or he hasn't applied for one with the state yet. But the $100 he contributed to himself still counts as a valid campaign contribution.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.