Virginia’s inaugural audit of campaign finance reports raises almost as many questions about state oversight than it does in answering how accurately a group of seven randomly selected candidates listed their contributions and expenses.
In a report to the General Assembly released Tuesday, the Department of Elections suggested changes to the audit law, providing more time to complete future reviewing and updating the agency’s computer systems.
The document warns that the post-election review following statewide elections this November will be a far bigger — and much more expensive — undertaking.
Here is one measure of the task ahead: The first audit examined documentation of 212 donations greater than $500. In just nine weeks this spring, the two candidates for governor racked up more than 1,600 such donations.
Officials at the Department of Elections said early Tuesday morning that they would have no comment on the report. They stuck to that message, even after being told that Cardinal News found apparent inaccuracies in some findings.
“The Department will not be available for press interviews,” said Andrea Gaines, the agency’s FOIA officer.
The report said that all seven candidates cooperated with the agency, but noted that a “small percentage of requests” resulted in no documentation being provided. Under agency guidelines, failure to provide documentation after 10 days can result in a non-compliance report and possible referral to the commonwealth’s attorney for prosecution.
The report does not explain why the agency did not follow up with candidates who did not provide requested documentation or, in some cases, shared records that were illegible.
The campaign finance review, which was contracted to GME Enterprises, a government contractor in Maryland, generally gave candidates high scores for math and providing required information about donor names, addresses and occupations. The report noted state-provided software checks the math and validates if information is complete.
The true test — comparing canceled checks and invoices against what candidates reported in their donor lists — resulted in some significantly lower scores. Candidates were dinged if they didn’t provide canceled checks or the information they provided didn’t check out. In some instances, the auditors found payments that were not listed in the candidates’ reports.
While four of the candidates documented 89% or more of contributions greater than $500, Roanoke mayoral candidate David Bowers scored 67% and Chesapeake City Councilman Les Smith was credited for documenting 40%. Meanwhile, Alexandria Mayor Alyia Gaskins got a zero.
The report caught Gaskins by surprise Tuesday when contacted by a reporter. She took issue with the notion that her campaign somehow had been unable to document a single campaign contribution.
“What we feel confident in is the accuracy of our reports,” Gaskins said. “They were always on time, they were always complete. No errors were ever identified.”
Gaskins said she received a voicemail from the Department of Elections on Thursday notifying her that the report would be available on Tuesday. Gaskins said she called back and left a message, asking if there is anything she should know.
“Unfortunately,” she said, “we’re learning about this at the same time as everyone else is.”
The Department of Elections also gave candidates low scores across the board related to a requirement that local candidates provide a next-day report of any donation of $500 or more in the days before an election.
But a Cardinal News review of campaign finance records on the Department of Elections website found that all six candidates who received large, last-minute donations appeared to have reported the correct number of transactions.
While the agency declined to address this discrepancy, the report noted that candidates amending their reports “caused confusion and delays in the sorting of the data points.”
The audit report makes no mention of a Department of Elections goal to screen reports for prohibited donations from foreign nationals who are not green card holders.
In 2022, the General Assembly approved an audit bill that moved Virginia past an honor system by granting the Department of Elections the authority to compel candidates to document their contributions and expenditures.
For the first time, Virginia candidates were on notice that may be called upon to provide bank records, invoices and other documents to verify their fundraising and spending. All candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general are audited. A random drawing selects 10% of General Assembly candidates and 1% of local candidates. Election seekers who raise $25,000 or less are exempt.
In its first audit report, the Department of Elections said it was hamstrung by the fact the law prescribes exactly what types of documents state officials can request. The report said that unless the list is expanded to include such records as loan documents and credit card statements, the agency cannot ascertain the accuracy of some aspects of campaign finance disclosures.
The agency also said it is planning computer system enhancements that would catch more common mistakes as campaigns enter data and to run reports that would automate some audit functions. The report noted that the 2025 General Assembly approved funding to develop a plan to replace the COMET online filing system, which has been in use since 2012.
In its list of findings, the agency stressed the need for candidate training to “share common reporting errors and raise awareness” of the audit requirements.
Bowers did not return several messages left for him. Several of the other candidates said they hoped the exercise would be a teaching moment, but said they have not heard from the agency since complying with the document requests back in January.
Norfolk Mayor Kenny Alexander said he had expected to receive some feedback, to learn what he could have done better.
“I guess we came out OK, because I haven’t heard back from them,” he said Tuesday.
