Yep she did!
PROJECT UPDATE
Hi everyone,
So, we have just a little problemo….. If you search Rebellion PAC using the site, it provides about 5 line items of donations to Trump. And… that’s false. lol.
After discussing with my coding group, we want to take some time to refine the data and improve the code so that we are releasing a product that provides the most accurate data possible. Of course, there will inevitably we some inaccuracies here and there, but we want to do at least one cycle of refinement before we make the site available to the public because we want the public to trust the site.
-Arpan
3 Likes
Dustin and Eddy are really good coders. Dustin has finished transferring all of the stanford site data to a database. Now he is just refining it to remove bugs. Once this is done, we should be pretty close to making site live on corruptionwatch.us
1 Like
So what is happening now is we are preparing to internally test version 2 of the site. Version 2 uses a MUCH larger dataset, courtesy of the Stanford site.
The site is not live on corruptionwatch.us because we have a MUCH more robust data set, and we’ve got to adjust the code so that it can handle all of this data. Then, we will internally test version 2. Based on version 2 feedback, it may or may not be ready to go live on corruptionwatch.us. Nevertheless, the site is getting better and better through this iterative process.
1 Like
I had a group call with Corey and Dustin on Discord. We need Cenk’s feedback. We have two problems. I have emailed Kara to get Cenk’s feedback but would like to get other people’s feedback on this too.
Problem 1: The contribution database contains over 400 million rows of data involving different types of contributions since 1980. These include political donations made by individuals and organizations to local, state, and federal elections. The candidate database includes candidates, PACs, super PACs, leadership PACs, 527s, party committees, campaigns for state ballot measures, and other recipient committees that engage in fundraising activities. So, the candidate database isn’t just the politicians themselves. Therefore, the lines get blurred on how much money a particular candidate is actually getting. Money is switching hands a lot. This is why on version 2 of app, Bernie is rolling in dough lol, but so is everyone else. Do we just trim the data set so that we are only tracking direct contributions to candidates, in which case we would exclude a person or organization contributing to a SuperPAC, etc.? If so, would this be cherry-picking the data so it is misleading to the general public?
Problem 2: The Stanford data set attaches multiple bill topics to bills. There are currently 247 distinct bill topics. Our goal is to show who politicians get money from and how they vote on a bill. If a bill has multiple topics, would this cause confusion? What are your thoughts?
Lots of facets to consider. Leaving out anything by trimming is a way for antagonists to disregard the entirety by claiming a lack of integrity. Maybe having a set of filters that are customizable, but also having prebuilt sets for people to find specific companies or candidates or political leanings, sort of like Ground News does but with more granular control since you already have the information on hand.
Is there a comparison chart of some kind? Sorry I’ve been absent from the discussions and meetings, I try not to waste time with redundant questions.
As for the additional bill topics, it seems like you list all money being donated in your sets. I’m sure the companies and investors involved in additional topics managed to donate or influence somehow, but if it isn’t recorded then it’s just hypothetical, right? It would be awesome to show those other connections, and having some kind of footnotes or links would make people consider that they had influence without claiming that they did.
Amazing work!
2 Likes
PROJECT PAPER TRAIL UPDATE
Had an hour Discord call with Dustin and Corey.
The biggest beast we are handling is the contributions. There are many contribution types. Corey is currently researching the contribution types from the FEC website to determine which ones we need to focus on.
Once Corey reports to the group on this, I am going to create a flowchart that helps the average American understand how money is actually flowing/exchanging hands.
In the meantime, Dustin is formatting the contribution data into a CSV file which he will post in the Paper Trail channel. We will split up the CSV file for different people to analyze. The goal is to look at each contributor and understand who they are and what industry they represent. Then, we will add that information into the data set. This will allow us to map each contributor into a pre-determined industry. We need to do this so we can see how industries are funding people/organizations, which ties into the flowchart I will be creating.
2 Likes
BIG UPDATE
Corey finished creating a contributions chart on a google doc that analyzes the different types of contributions. Based on Corey’s work, I did some coding with AI assistance to develop an animated flowchart that the average American can read to understand how money is exchanging hands before getting to a candidate. Now, I’m going to work with Dustin and Eddy to figure out how we need to adjust our code for the Paper Trail website so that it’s going by this flowchart. Not an easy task… lol.
Take a look at links below. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. This flowchart probably still needs more work. Having more sets of eyes on it will be beneficial. We’ll most likely put this flowchart on Paper Trail website.
Hey! I just heard about this project and it sounds right up my alley. I am full stack web developer and would love to help in anyway I can