A Wisconsin lawmaker recently proposed state “sunshine” legislation aimed at providing more transparency in the state’s contracting process. Currently, details about government contracts are not available to the public. Assembly Speaker John Gard (R-Peshtigo) introduced the Contract Sunshine Act Dec. 22, 2004, which would require any state contractors to follow the same disclosure requirements as lobbyists. Under law, anyone that employs a lobbyist must register with the state Ethics Board and file semiannual reports on lobbying expenditures. The new bill would extend these same requirements to anyone that is trying to affect the outcome of a contract. This way, the public can see who is asking for state contracts, and the amounts. While many point to the bill as an improvement over current practices, in copying the lobby law, there are still impediments to full public disclosure. First, an organization only has to report on activities that account for more than 10 percent of its lobbying time. Therefore, if activities to procure contracts do not meet this time requirement they will not be reported. Second, reporting only occurs every six months, delaying public disclosure which can mean that a contract process could see completion before the public can access any of the details. Recent controversies over state contracts in Wisconsin were the impetus for the new legislation. The Federal Elections Board is facing a lawsuit challenging the way it entered into a $ 9.7 million contract to build a statewide voter registration list. The plaintiffs are claiming the secret deal violated state open records laws. Wisconsin’s Department of Transportation is also under fire because it awarded several contracts for amounts deemed too high. One no-bid contract provided $ 685,000 for the construction of a basic website. The agency is also under investigation after delaying the release of a report that examined the cost of contracting out work. A Milwaukee newspaper and two unions submitted a request under the state open records law, only to be told the report was not finished. When it was finally released several months later in November 2004, the report was found to have been completed in April 2004, directly contradicting the agency’s previous claim.