Transparency
How the committee works, in the open.
This page describes the standards the committee applies to what it publishes, how its finances are reported, how errors are handled, and the governance standards that have been proposed for it. Where a standard is proposed rather than adopted, this page says so.
Research and sourcing standards
These standards apply to everything the committee publishes on this site. The publishing system enforces the first of them: an item cannot be published here without a list of the records it relies on.
What counts as a source
- Primary public records are the basis for every factual claim: roll-call votes and bill text from the Congressional Record and congress.gov, court filings, financial disclosure forms, FEC reports, agency records, and transcripts or recordings of statements made on the record.
- Secondary reporting by a news organization may be cited to explain context, but a factual claim about a candidate is not published on the strength of secondary reporting alone.
- Anonymous or unverifiable material is not used.
How material is prepared
- Each claim is written down with the record it comes from.
- The original record is obtained and read in full, not only the excerpt that supports the claim.
- The claim is checked against the record by a second person.
- The list of records is published beside the material, with links where the source is available online.
Facts, analysis, and opinion
Each publication labels three things separately:
- Documented facts: what a record shows, with the record cited.
- Analysis: what the committee concludes from the records, presented as the committee's assessment.
- Opinion: what the committee believes should follow, presented as the committee's position.
A reader can accept the first without accepting the second or third.
Financial reporting
As a registered political committee, Americans for Accountability files periodic reports with the Federal Election Commission that list its receipts, including the name, address, employer, and occupation of each contributor who gives more than $200 in a calendar year, and its disbursements. Independent expenditures are reported separately, and on accelerated schedules close to an election when spending reaches the thresholds set in federal rules. All of these reports are public.
After each filing, the committee summarizes it on this site: total receipts, spending on independent expenditures and production, fundraising costs, and officer compensation, each as a dollar amount and as a share of receipts. Where a summary here and an FEC filing differ, the filing controls.
FEC committee ID: C00964049. Filings at fec.gov.
Registration and filings are publicly available in the FEC database.
Current financial summary
The committee has not yet filed its first financial report with the Federal Election Commission. After each filing, this section will show total receipts, spending on independent expenditures and production, fundraising costs, and officer compensation, each as a dollar amount and as a share of receipts, reconciled to the filing.
Registration and filings are publicly available in the FEC database.
Corrections
The committee has not yet adopted a formal corrections policy. That is a decision for its leadership, and this page will describe the policy once one is adopted.
In the meantime, anyone who believes a published claim does not match its source can write to [email protected]. The committee's practice is to compare the claim with the cited record and, where the claim is wrong, to correct the material and note the correction beside it.
Governance standards
-
No related-party payments
The committee would not pay any officer, advisor, or their family members or businesses for goods or services beyond published officer compensation. Vendors would certify that no officer holds an ownership interest in them.
-
Two-person approval above $2,500
Any single payment above $2,500 would require written approval from two officers before it is made.
-
Competitive bids above $10,000
Any vendor engagement expected to exceed $10,000 would require at least two written bids, with the reason for the selection kept on file.
-
2 outside advisors with the right to review the books
Two named advisors who are not officers, employees, or vendors would be able to inspect bank statements, invoices, contracts, and approvals at any time, and their names would be published on this page.
-
Annual independent review
Once a year an accountant with no other relationship to the committee would review the books, and the result would be summarized here.
-
No debt beyond cash on hand
The committee would not take on obligations it cannot pay from cash already in the bank.
Compensation standard
Proposed, not yet adopted.
Under the proposal, pay to the committee's officers would be capped at 10% of net receipts (receipts after payment-processing fees and refunds). It would be paid only after vendors are paid, and only after at least 70% of receipts had gone to independent expenditures and the research and production behind them. Each payment would require written approval from the outside advisors, and the total paid would be published in the financial summary on this page.
Outside advisors
No outside advisors have been appointed. The proposed governance standards call for two, independent of the committee's officers and vendors, with the right to review its books at any time. Their names and backgrounds will be published here when they are appointed.
This website
This site is published from a public code repository. It sets no tracking cookies and loads no advertising scripts. Website analytics are currently switched off. The site's source code is available at github.com/MaraStJohn/AmericansforAccountability.