Category Archives: Legislature

McGill becomes lieutenant governor, Massey cries “coup!”, Leatherman becomes president pro tem

6 Replies

That was a busy, fairly intense hour or so I just spent over at the State House. Since I’ve already written it all out in Tweets, here’s my feed, with a few reTweets and replies thrown in for seasoning.

I’ll set the scene by saying no one emerged to oppose Sen. Yancey McGill for the office of Senate president pro tempore, despite the hand-wringing of some Republicans over the idea of a Democrat holding a practically powerless statewide office for a mere seven months) the horror!). Then:

So, you see, lots o’ drama, but not much suspense. You could have heard a pin drop while Massey was talking, but it was all over.

I like that Sen. Massey joined the thread. One of the cool things about Twitter is you get that kind of back-and-forth. Not just a monologue.

By the way, when I wrote that “the battle for pro tem is joined on the Senate floor,” I didn’t realize there wasn’t going to be a battle, other than Massey’s speech. I didn’t realize Martin had dropped out.

Also, that SRO crowd — I think it was all one group, having to do with the Farm Bureau or some such. They were later recognized from the floor. They just happened to enter as things got interesting.

And I wasn’t looking at Tom Davis when he voted no — even though he was seated right below me — but someone in the gallery near me noted that he had seemed really conflicted, and apparently disgusted, at the time of his vote. I’ll see if I can get ahold of him to elaborate.

And so you see the limitations of social media. It’s immediate, but stuff you find out moments later (and would have known before writing your story for old media) gets left out…

Corey Hutchins’ 4,500-word primer on Harrell saga

Leave a reply

As we look forward to the state Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the clash over Attorney General Alan Wilson’s power to investigate House Speaker Bobby Harrell, you may want to review how we got here.

If you have the time, you might peruse Corey Hutchin’s 4,500-word explainer for The Center for Public Integrity, headlined “An ethical mess in South Carolina.”

Corey sets the scene thusly:

On a recent Thursday, a light rain was washing against the office window of South Carolina’s first-term attorney general, Alan Wilson. On the floor near his desk, about a dozen thick black binders spilled out of the bottom shelf of a bookcase and onto the carpet. Inside each of them: supporting documentation from a 10-month state police investigation into the sitting House speaker, Bobby Harrell, a fellow Republican and arguably the state’s most powerful politician.

“And that’s just a preliminary investigation,” said Wilson, gesturing to the pile.

The attorney general will not say what’s inside the binders, and no one outside a handful of lawyers, prosecutors, law enforcement agents and grand jurors who are sworn to secrecy have seen what’s in the report. The speaker of the House himself hasn’t seen what’s in it either, although he’s called for Wilson to release the voluminous file to the public, maintaining he’s done nothing wrong and decrying the grand jury probe as political in nature.

But the question of what’s in those binders is but one of many queries that have riveted the Palmetto State as it struggles to cope with a scandal unprecedented even by the standards of this often ethically challenged state. Whether Wilson, the state’s top prosecutor, will be able to continue an investigation he turned over to a state grand jury in January has itself now come into question. A state court judge who was elected by the legislators — South Carolina is one of just two states that allow that — issued a stunning ruling last month that said the AG lacks jurisdiction over the powerful speaker. The judge ordered Wilson to shut down his probe. Wilson has appealed to the state Supreme Court, calling the judge’s order “unprecedented in American law and unsupported by any known legal authority,” and has vowed to press on. The state’s highest court has set a June 24 date to hear oral arguments….

You will already know a lot of what he has to say after that, but you may learn some things, too. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing myself, although I intend to…

Bad craziness in and around the SC Senate

26 Replies

For some time, I had been hearing about how “toxic” the atmosphere was lately in the State House. And when I asked which of several things the person saying that might be referring to, it would turn out to be about the atmosphere in a House whose speaker is being investigated, and who is locked in an increasingly freaky legal battle with the state attorney general of his own party regarding that investigation.

But you knew about that.

Then, in the last couple of weeks of the legislative session, suddenly things got just as weird and uncomfortable in the Senate — which, you know, likes to fancy itself as above such things.

This situation has more aspects than a cat has hair, so let’s discuss it in chunks.

  • First, Glenn McConnell surprised everybody a couple of years back by falling on his sword and becoming lieutenant governor when Ken Ard resigned. Everyone, including yours truly, went on and on about how selfless that was — going from being the most powerful of senators to a job that is only slightly better than a bucket of warm “spit” because several years ago lawmakers gave the gov lite the Office on Aging so he’d have something to do. But eventually, everybody got used to that, and got used to McConnell friend John Courson being the new president pro tem, largely due to the support of Democrats in that body.
  • Then, McConnell decided that he wanted to become president of the College of Charleston, and the trustees chose him for that position. Which caused a whole lot of fuss, but mostly down in Charleston. McConnell served notice initially that he’d quit at the end of June, so somebody would have to become Gov Lite in his place. Courson indicated he was not interested.
  • Then, Courson and others held up a bill that would have somehow magically transformed the College of Charleston into a research institution.
  • Then, McConnell indicated he would leave office before the end of June, which meant there would be no Gov Lite to ratify bills so they could go to the governor, which is the like one thing we need a Gov Lite for, other than to take a governor’s place in a pinch.
  • Then, McConnell, started impugning the honor of John Courson for not being at all willing to fall on his sword and become lieutenant governor. Courson announced plans to step down as president pro tem, with a barrage of self-righteousness from McConnell coming down around his ears. Meanwhile, Majority Leader Harvey Peeler was suggesting that McConnell himself was less than fully honorable in trying to get a CofC bill passed while he was still in the State House.
  • After a moment in which it looked like no one was interested in becoming pro tem, and therefore lt. gov., Democrat Yancey McGill raised his hand — which would give Democrats, however briefly, their first statewide elective office since Jim Rex left the position of superintendent of education.
  • Then, Sens. Hugh Leatherman and Larry Martin expressed interest in the pro tem position — but only (if I’m following this correctly), after Yancey McGill has already held the post and become temporary lieutenant governor. I mean, they’re not crazy or anything.

You see why I hadn’t written about this? It takes awhile even to set out the bare bones.

The wildest part of it all for me is seeing McConnell and Courson split the blanket this way. They were always as tight as any pair of senators in that most collegial body. Back when I had trouble getting McConnell on the phone (which was pretty much any time I wanted to get him on the phone), I would go to Courson and he would ask McConnell to call me, and he would, against his inclinations.

What happens next? Well, if you made me take a wild guess, I’d predict that Leatherman comes out on top at the end of it all, because I find it easy to imagine the Democrats (who elected Courson) backing him than backing Martin. Leatherman, after all, used to be a Democrat, and Martin is believed to be Nikki Haley’s preference.

But hey, in a world in which John Courson and Glenn McConnell are bad-mouthing each other, anything can happen.

 

Tombo Hite shows how you run as a Democrat in SC

25 Replies

There’s no one thing that’s particularly remarkable about this web video for legislative candidate Tombo Hite of Abbeville.

But it strikes me as a good example of how different it is to be a Democrat in South Carolina.

Strategist Tyler Jones brought this young attorney to my attention, saying:

Just want to forward you the new web ad for Tombo Hite, our House candidate in District 11 (Abbeville, Anderson). This guy is a rock star and has all the potential of any candidate I’ve seen in years. Keep your eye on him.

This district was held by a Democrat (Paul Agnew) until 2012 when a Democrat and a Democratic petition candidate split the votes and elected a republican, Craig Gagnon.

Yet, although according to that we should assume this is fairly safe territory for a Democrat, I’ve listened to this video twice, and if he mentioned being a Democrat, I missed it. (This is possible, because I was doing other stuff as I listened. But I know for sure he didn’t stress it.)

Then, there’s the fact that the first thing he wants you to know about him, policywise, is that he’s a fiscal conservative. Although he expresses that with a slight difference from Republicans. You have to listen carefully for it.

He says he wants to “get government out of the way and to keep our taxes low.” A Republican would want to lower taxes. Tombo is subtly telling you that our taxes are already low — which they are — and that he’s just going to keep them that way. (And indeed, I find his promise to fight a gas tax increase — an essential step to addressing our infrastructure problems — disturbing.)

After that, he sounds like a fairly typical Dem, SC-style. He wants to raise teacher salaries and revamp DSS.

And fight partisanship. So, good for him there. (Of course, if you’re a Democrat, you have extra motivation to want the General Assembly to be less partisan, so that maybe the majority will listen to you occasionally — not something that happens a lot in the House.)

Anyway, nothing dramatic here. I just thought I’d point those things out, for anyone unfamiliar with South Carolina Democrats and how they differ from the national variety.

tombo

Haley vetoes: From First Steps to legislator pay

12 Replies

When I saw that the governor had vetoed First Steps (much beloved of Democrats since it was started by Jim Hodges), my first thought was, Huh. Maybe she DID mean we would “no longer educate children,” The younger ones, anyway.

Democrats are certainly hoping voters will see it that way. They are howling blue murder. Even the normally calm Rep. James Smith — the original sponsor of First Steps — got a bit shrill:

“Governor Haley has once again used her veto pen to stick it to education in South Carolina. First she vetoes $110 million in education funding, then she vetoes funding to keep teachers in the classroom, and now she wants to eliminate the First Steps early childhood education initiative. This governor has never truly supported education in this state and no election year gimmick can change that reality. Today’s veto is just another example of Governor Haley saying one thing and doing another. We look forward to overriding her veto next week and denying her the ability to once again play politics with our children’s future.”

But when I read The State‘s story, I had to admit that I don’t know, personally, how effective First Steps, which supports programs in private preschools, has been. So the governor’s wish to see it studied further before authorizing it for more than a year at a time doesn’t sound so bad. Maybe there’s something I’m missing.

I do find it ironic that she is vetoing something that sends public money to private educators.

Then there’s the matter of the governor’s veto of the pay raise lawmakers voted themselves. She says she isn’t arguing with the pay raise itself; she objects to the way they did it. That’s where I have to disagree with her. She thinks such a thing should be decided by referendum. Well, you know what I think of government by plebiscite. Lawmakers have to face the voters after voting themselves something like this. That’s enough of a check on their fiscal self-interest.

On the whole, the governor is ending the session the way she began it — as a kinder, gentler wielder of the veto pen. For instance, no veto of the Arts Commission. And as The State said, the total “amount cut with this year’s proposed vetoes is by far the smallest since Haley took office in 2011.”

Maybe she really has changed. What do y’all think?

Tea Party seeming more and more an actual, separate party

16 Replies

Some time ago — and it’s frustrating me that I can’t put my hands on it at the moment — Brad Hutto gave a speech somewhere in the Upstate in which he announced that Democrats were in the driver’s seat in the SC Senate.

That startled some who heard it, but there’s a certain truth to it, if you consider how divided the Republican caucus is. There are only 18 Democrats in a body of 46, but it’s not unusual for the Republicans to split between, say, 16 regular Country Club, Chamber of Commerce Republicans, and the rest voting solidly Tea Party. (The numbers break differently, according to the issue.) That gives Democrats a solid plurality, when they stick together. (Which they don’t always do; you might even see Gerald Malloy teaming with a Tea Partier to hold up something other Democrats want.)

Democratic muscle can exert itself in some seemingly surprising ways — such as when John Courson became president pro tem based on Democratic support.

Anyway, we keep seeing signs that increasingly, Tea Partiers wear their “R” designation lightly, placing greater emphasis on their snake-flag loyalties.

A small example of that was in this release today from Lee Bright, in the wake of his getting crushed by Lindsey Graham:

Bright Campaign Falls Short – But Accomplished Much


Lee Bright and five other challengers could not hold well-funded Lindsey Graham under the needed 50 per cent threshold in South Carolina’s Republican Senate PrimaryTuesday night – but the insurgent campaign of the Upstate Senator did defy gravity – and Bright was the dominant challenger from wire to wire. While all the financial figures are not in yet, Bright for Senate will clearly have the best vote to dollars spent ratio.
 
Bright ended up with 15.4% of the vote, almost double his nearest competitor – Richard Cash.  He held Graham well under 50% in Spartanburg and Greenville Counties, and doubled up Nancy Mace in Charleston County.
 
“Our team and our volunteers worked extremely hard, and even though we fell short, we have a lot to be proud of,” said Bright, who added, “With Eric Cantor’s defeat in Virginia, some good things happened for the country on Tuesday, even if not in our race. We’re going to continue to fight for what we believe, and we understand that the fight for liberty never ends.”
 
Bright added that he was “humbled by the work of our volunteers – from making phone calls to making signs – these people kept me going. I am proud to have been in this fight with them.” Bright also said that he hopes “Lindsey Graham’s recent aversion to ObamaCare will continue, now that the Primary is over. We’re going to hold him to that.”

###

See that? “With Eric Cantor’s defeat in Virginia, some good things happened for the country on Tuesday…”

It’s not at all surprising that he’d say that, but sometimes it’s instructive to stop and think, “He’s celebrating the defeat of his own (supposed) party’s majority leader.” And realize that Tea Party Republicans are getting less Republican each day…

What’s ironic is that Republicans who sympathize with the Tea Party are sometimes the first to call real, traditional Republicans “RINOs.” When of course, it’s the other way around.

SC Republican voters on Tuesday showed that they’ve picked up on that, in their utter rejection of Lindsey Graham’s challengers…

The Harrell investigation continues

7 Replies

Yesterday, the state Supreme Court gave Attorney General Alan Wilson the official OK to keep doing what he’s doing:

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson, SLED and the State Grand Jury can continue investigating alleged ethics and other possible criminal violations against S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell while Wilson’s appeal of a lower court order is pending, the Supreme Court said in an order issued Thursday.

In his May 12 ruling on the matter, Circuit Judge Casey Manning ordered Wilson and SLED to stop investigating Harrell and turn the matter over to the House Ethics Committee for its consideration.

Manning also ordered Wilson to disband the State Grand Jury that is investigating Harrell. But Wilson had continued to investigate even after Manning’s ruling, saying the ruling infringed on his role as the state’s top prosecutor.

The Supreme Court’s order Thursday keeps the grand jury intact and allows it to keep investigating Harrell pending a June 24 hearing on whether Wilson’s entire investigation should be turned over to the House Ethics Committee….

While not definitively affirming the rule of law (that will only happen when Manning’s ruling is overturned), this restores some semblance of good sense and order to the situation.

I found it ironic that Harrell put out a statement saying in part, “The attorney general’s conduct has made it clear that political motivations are driving his actions.” In a backhanded way, Bobby Harrell is doing all he can to get Alan Wilson re-elected, by acting so outrageously (the attempt to have the AG taken off the case secretly really takes the cake) and offering him these golden opportunities to look good.

That said, Mr. Wilson deserves full credit for rising to the occasion, doing the right thing at each step along the way.

On a related matter — what do y’all think about the question John Monk raised this morning, whether Jean Toal and Costa Pleicones should recuse themselves in the matter of Harrell, since the speaker backed the former for re-election, and opposed the latter?

I’m inclined to say no — that argument could conceivably be taken to the conclusion that no state judge should ever decide a matter regarding a legislator, since they elect the judges — but I’m open to a good argument…

So, is Harrell now an asset or a liability to a candidate?

18 Replies

Joe McCulloch, who is running against Rep. Kirkman Finlay III in a rematch of their 2012 contest, put out this release today:

Joe McCulloch calls on Kirkman Finlay to reconsider including Bobby Harrell as part of his Fundraiser Host Committee

Columbia, SC – House District 75 candidate Joe McCulloch called on his opponent, State Rep. Kirkman Finlay to reconsider Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell as a host for a fundraiser on his behalf on May 27th. Harrell is currently under state grand jury investigation for ethics violations. Representative Finlay recently introduced legislation that would strip the Attorney General of his authority to investigate and prosecute legislators such as Harrell.

McCulloch released the following statement:

“It is no secret that Kirkman Finlay has introduced legislation that obviously benefits Speaker of the House, Bobby Harrell. First, Kirkman introduced a bill to prohibit the prosecution of officeholders caught improperly spending campaign funds as long as the error was corrected within 30 days. More recently, he joined in sponsoring a bill that would strip the Attorney General of his authority to prosecute ethics violations, including Harrell’s. And now Speaker Harrell is a prominent host in a fundraiser for Representative Finlay on May 27, presenting the appearance of a quid-pro-quo and further demonstrating how blatantly flawed our political system has become. I call on Representative Finlay to do the right thing and show the people of our district that he works for them, not Bobby Harrell.”

Rep. Finlay was featured in Cindi Scoppe’s recent column entitled “How many more times will Harrell’s friends try to quash ethics probe?”http://www.thestate.com/2014/04/15/3389321/scoppe-how-many-more-times-will.html

Which makes me wonder: Is it still an asset for a GOP candidate to have the speaker host an event for him? Or has he become a liability?

I mean, you know, totally apart from ethical considerations…

Does it matter that Harrell’s PAC contributed to ethics panel members? Uh, yeah, I think so…

3 Replies

While I believe Kenny Bingham is saying what he truly believes when he says he would not be swayed by past contributions from a PAC associated with Speaker Bobby Harrell, I’m gonna have to come down on the side of those who would say that this means the House Ethics Committee should in no way be passing judgment on their boss:

The five Republican members of the 10-member House Ethics Committee — which House Speaker Bobby Harrell wants to decide allegations against him — have received some $13,000 in campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with the Charleston Republican.

Those committee members, who have received contributions from the Palmetto Leadership Council PAC, include Ethics Committee chairman Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington. In 2008, 2010 and 2012, Bingham received $1,000 contributions each election cycle from the Palmetto Leadership Council….

Actually… I would question the impartiality of the panel even if no one on it had received a dime from the PAC. But the money raises sufficient additional questions that the House ethics cops should leap to recuse themselves and let other competent authorities deal with this matter. Such as, you know, the attorney general…

Oh, and on a related matter…

It looks like whoever did the coding on John Monk’s story had a bit of a Freudian slip. The story appears on the website under “Crime” instead of under “SC Politics.” Very interesting…

crime

This just in: Craft beer bill on fast track

16 Replies

 

levitation_small

This came in a little while ago from Wesley Donehue over at Push Digital:

ICYMI: Craft Beer Law Change on Fast Track

Columbia, SC-May 16, 2014:  “South Carolina is on the verge of passing the most progressive craft beer production laws in the country”,  from the Greenville News (5/15/14).

It’s hard to believe that just three weeks ago the possibility of passing the Stone Bill was nearly impossible, but thanks to grassroots efforts and a lot of emails to the SC General Assembly we made magic happen.

Why is the Stone Bill so important?

1. It will loosen antiquated beer laws in efforts to attract California-based company, Stone Brewing , who is planning a $31 million eastward expansion, to South Carolina.

2. It will create more than 250 jobs.

3. South Carolina breweries will finally have the chance to be competitive with the booming craft beer industry taking off around the country.

To pass a bill this fast in South Carolina is practically unheard of and with the potential of a $31 million investment and hundreds of new jobs it would be a mistake for the General Assembly not to pass the Stone Bill.

For more information visit scbeerjobs.com, or contact Wesley Donehue at 843.460.7990

Unsubscribe

###

But — and here’s what I’m unclear on — are we still in the running for Stone, or is this aimed at other, similar opportunities?

Legislative shocker: Bills sometimes don’t receive sufficient scrutiny

5 Replies

The “shocker” headline is, of course, ironic.

SC Democrats seem to thing they have a big “gotcha” in state GOP Chairman Matt Moore’s that “At times, things pass the legislature without much debate and scrutiny.”

Personally, that doesn’t seem like much of a news flash. But the Dems are making of it what they can:

BREAKING VIDEO: SCGOP Chairman Says GOP Majority Ineptly Passes Bills Without Scrutiny

 

Columbia, SC – Today, SCGOP Chairman Matt Moore stated that GOP leaders and elected officials in the state legislature regularly pass bills without looking at what’s in them.

 

In a press conference trying to distract from the mismanagement at Governor Haley’s DSS, the SCGOP chairman was asked about the massive Republican support for a bill the SCGOP was trying to use to criticize Sen. Vincent Sheheen. Moore said: “At times, things pass the legislature without much debate and scrutiny.”

SCDP Executive Director Conor Hurley released this statement:

“The comments by the SCGOP Chairman today are stunning and highly concerning. Exactly which bills has the SCGOP’s majority pushed through the House and Senate without knowing what’s in them? How long has this abdication of duty been happening? And, is it all GOP members as Chairman Moore implies, or just a select few?

“For the Chairman of a party to first call a press conference to attack his own members for being soft on crime, and then to claim that they are essentially incompetent at their jobs – the SCGOP and Haley campaign must be pretty desperate to distract from Governor Haley’s refusal to fix the mismanagement at her Department of Social Services that has allowed children to tragically die. The people of South Carolina deserve answers.”

 

###

Regarding sun and sand in the State House

2 Replies

This release came last night from Ann Timberlake with Conservation Voters of South Carolina:

Folks,

As session nears a close, there is an increased amount of activity in the lobby of the State House. Today, the House LCI Subcommittee unanimously voted out S.1189, the compromise solar bill that will unleash the sun for South Carolinians. It will go in front of the full House LCI committee Thursday morning. We expect a floor vote as early as next week. Please encourage your Representative to support the solar bill.

This morning, we joined with Coastal Conservation League and the South Carolina Environmental Law Project to denounce the Senate’s compromise shoreline bill that “has been kidnapped by the House and force fed with special amendments that are for special interests,” as so aptly stated by Nancy Cave in the article below.

We urge you to ask your Representative (CLICK HERE) to oppose the House version of S.890 unless it is restored to the Senate language that limits the Debordieu exemption to 3 years and stops seaward movement of the baseline beginning in July, 2014.  This bill is currently awaiting a vote in the House.

Stay tuned and thank you for caring about the South Carolina we love.

http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/14/3446155/conservationists-proposed-bill.html?sp=/99/132/#storylink=cpy

Sincerely,

Ann Timberlake

I pass it on in case you were following those bills…

Lawmakers, listen up! Here’s how you can fix ethics mess

3 Replies

You knew Cindi would have a good column reacting to the ruling by Judge Manning that she had foreshadowed with dread, and today she did. Read it here.

It’s all good, but on the chance that some of our lawmakers are reading today, I want to call attention to the part in which she explained what they could do to fix the situation. Noting that there’s no guarantee that the Supreme Court will reverse the circuit judge, she urged lawmakers to act today:

The best chance this year for making that fix could come Wednesday. That’s when the House could make final changes to an anemic ethics-reform bill, before it goes to a House-Senate conference committee. This stage is crucial, because it’s the last time legislators can insert new language into the bill by a simple majority; after this, any new language will require two-thirds approval in the House and the Senate.

So, what we need is for someone to propose an amendment to make it clear that ethics violations are crimes and that the attorney general is free to prosecute them. It needs to be a clean amendment — one that doesn’t also grant other forms of immunity, or raise the standard for prosecution, or make any other nefarious changes that reduce the chance that legislators who violate the law will be punished.

There are lots of other shortcomings of that bill, but frankly, no loophole in our ethics law even approaches the significance of the one that Judge Manning just discovered. If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn his order or the Legislature doesn’t pass the fix, then I’m not sure anything else in the ethics law will really matter very much.

The only people who would vote against such an amendment are those who believe that legislators should remain above the law. No, not even that: It would be those legislators who are so arrogant in their power that they are willing to admit that they believe they are above the law.

Here’s hoping her words have a positive effect.

Undeterred, AG Wilson will continue Harrell probe

11 Replies

Good for Alan Wilson! He’s not going to let the judge’s ruling shut down his investigation:

COLUMBIA, SC — The investigation into S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell will continue despite a circuit judge’s order that an ongoing SLED and State Grand Jury probe be shut down immediately, state Attorney General Alan Wilson says.

Continued work is allowed during an appeal of a judge’s order, Wilson said. As expected, he said he is appealing Circuit Judge Casey Manning’s order immediately to the state Supreme Court.

“The law allows us to do that,” Wilson told a State reporter in an interview. “The grand jury can continue to do its work unless the S.C. Supreme Court orders it to cease and desist.”…

This is encouraging. I was afraid the whole investigation was dead in the water, pending an appellate ruling.

Judge Manning’s ruling yesterday increases the urgency to get to the bottom of these allegations against the speaker, and it’s a good thing for South Carolina that Wilson is carrying on.

Judge Manning’s outrageous ruling protecting Harrell

16 Replies

Well, it happened. After having reached for an absurd justification that even the speaker’s own attorneys hadn’t dared to propose, Circuit Judge Casey Manning ordered Attorney General Alan Wilson and SLED to stop investigating Bobby Harrell, and declared any action taken by the grand jury in the case “null and void.”

To remind you, here is what former attorneys general Travis Medlock, Charlie Condon and Henry McMaster had to say about the notion underlying the judge’s ruling:

“Over the past thirty years, not one of us ever imagined the Attorney General needed authorization from a legislative committee or political body in order to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal behavior by an elected official. Such a restriction would undercut the core Constitutional authority of the Attorney General. And even more importantly, it would violate the fundamental basis of our system of government that all people should be treated equally under the law.”

I wrote previously that the three ex-AGs standing next to Wilson to defend the rule of law made me proud to be from South Carolina. Judge Manning’s ruling makes me want to hang my head.

Wilson was undaunted, fortunately:

We believe today’s order of Judge Manning is without any foundation or support in the law. This office will vigorously pursue all appellate remedies and will seek to continue this investigation.

Judge Manning himself indicated that he expected the matter to be decided by a higher court. Of course, that’s no excuse for an irresponsible ruling.

Until a higher court acts, this investigation is in limbo. And that’s outrageous.

OK, well, just how graphic IS it?

11 Replies

I hadn’t paid much attention to the foofooraw over “gay-themed” books at the College of Charleston and USC Upstate, but something I saw at the top of this morning’s story did give me pause:

The College of Charleston assigned students to read “Fun Home,” a graphic memoir about the author’s struggle with family and sexual orientation. The University of South Carolina Upstate assigned “Out Loud: The Best of Rainbow Radio,” about being gay in the South…

Hold on — graphic? How graphic? I hadn’t seen the word, “graphic” before.

At this point, I supposed I could channel Woody Allen in “Sleeper” and offer to go off and study the material in detail and give you a full report later. But let’s just discuss it in the abstract first.

In this story, critics of the reading lists are couching their objections in terms of objecting to “pornography” at public institutions. Which seems to me a legitimate objection, if you’re one of the people expected to appropriate money for it. That is, if it is pornography. Having not yet conducted that in-depth study, I can’t say.

But if it is, I wonder — with all the fantastic literature that most undergraduates will never get around to reading in their entire lives, why does the curriculum need to have anything in it that a news story would matter-of-factly describe as “graphic.” It’s not like these kids don’t have access to porn websites. In what way is graphic material of any sort providing them with knowledge they can’t get without paying college tuition?

I tried to think of anything that I was assigned to read in school that was “graphic,” back in the licentious early ’70s, the days of “Deep Throat” and Plato’s Retreat.

The best I could come up with was Rabbit, Run by John Updike. I vaguely recall one dispiriting passage describing an adulterous liaison engaged in by Harry Angstrom. I don’t think anyone would call it “graphic.” It probably wouldn’t earn an “R” rating today (although the sequel, Rabbit Redux, which I read after college, certainly would have). It wasn’t nearly as prurient as God’s Little Acre, say.Caldwell172-GodsLittleAcre-frontCover

We read it because Updike was supposedly one of the great fiction writers of his generation. In that same class, we also read Crime and Punishment. Needless to say, the latter made a much deeper impression on me. I found Updike mostly… depressing.

I don’t feel deprived for not having studied anything “graphic” in school.

Thoughts about this? I mean, set aside the “gay-themed” bit that makes headlines. Let’s say we’re talking pure hetero. Is there any need for public institutions to use “graphic” reading material outside of a public health class?

My own gut reaction is to say “no,” although I supposed I could also without straining myself mount an argument that Erskine Caldwell‘s books are at least culturally relevant to South Carolina.

Such a discussion won’t lead to a resolution of this particular controversy, but I find the question intriguing…

Cindi Scoppe’s latest dead-on column about Harrell case

5 Replies

You may recall that Cindi Scoppe worried earlier that maybe Judge Manning himself came up with the outrageous idea that maybe there was some doubt about whether the attorney general had the authority to investigate crimes allegedly committed by legislators, without special permission.

She writes today that her fears were realized:

I respect the idea enunciated Friday by Circuit Judge Casey Manning that, before this case proceeds any further, he wants a thorough examination of subject-matter jurisdiction. That is, he wants to make sure that the State Grand Jury and Attorney General Alan Wilson actually have jurisdiction to investigate this case without the House Ethics Committee asking them to.

But honestly, the idea that they don’t … . Well, it remains too bizarre to even comprehend….

You want to know how out-there an idea it is that the state constitution prohibits the attorney general from investigating legislators without other legislators’ blessing? It’s so out there that even Mr. Harrell’s attorneys didn’t think of raising it.

That’s right. Mr. Harrell has some awfully audacious attorneys… But even they didn’t dream up this crazy theory. They quickly embraced it, of course; they’d be crazy not to. But the idea was not, as so many people had assumed, the brainchild of Bart Daniel and Gedney Howe.

It was, as Judge Manning acknowledged in court on Friday, Judge Manning’s idea.

How preposterous is the idea? Listen to former Attorneys General Henry McMaster, Charlie Condon and Travis Medlock, who served as South Carolina’s chief prosecutors for the past 30 years, showed up in the courtroom to make a point and issued this statement:

“Over the past thirty years, not one of us ever imagined the Attorney General needed authorization from a legislative committee or political body in order to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal behavior by an elected official. Such a restriction would undercut the core Constitutional authority of the Attorney General. And even more importantly, it would violate the fundamental basis of our system of government that all people should be treated equally under the law.”

Not one of us ever imagined such a thing.

This is not a close call….

So we all wait with bated breath, while the judge considers something that, given the law, should be beyond consideration. Or at least, it appears so to this layman.

Here’s hoping he reaches that same conclusion.

There’s nothing wrong with being a politician, per se

42 Replies

I just have one brief reaction to this email from Mia McLeod:

I’m a public servant, not a politician. There’s a difference.

One is committed to public service; the other, to that which is politically expedient.

And although I didn’t create the term, “OG,” you’ve gotta admit…when it comes to describing the corrupt, self-serving practices of the Old Guard…the glove definitely fits. And they’ve got their hands in it…from the Governor’s mansion…to the State House…and everything in between…all of these good ole boys and gals wanna do the deeds, but none of them want the “label.”
Fortunately, the voters of House District 79 didn’t send me to the State House to make new friends or become a willing participant in a corrupt “system” of governance that isn’t accessible, accountable or beneficial to the people it purports to serve. That’s “the system” I encountered when I was elected to the SC House four years ago, and that’s “the system” that I fight every single day.

And since so many members of the OG seem to question the definition and whether they’re appropriately “labeled,” please allow me to clarify for them what you and I already know…

The “OG” is defined by a self-preserving mindset and self-serving behavior, not age. There’s a difference.

Truth is…the OG is a very diverse group. Representing every age, race, ethnicity, gender, discipline and party affiliation, they are masters of deception and rhetoric. Why? Because if they can convince you to trust and believe what they say, you won’t pay close attention to what they do.

But if you’re still in doubt, just check these out. They’re some of the OG’s proudest moments:

Governor Haley’s ethics charges, although legitimate and substantiated, are unabashedly “dropped” by her OG colleagues…some of whom now stand with her in front of every camera they can find, “demanding” ethics reform

Former Richland County Elections Director recklessly disenfranchises thousands of voters in 2012, but is endorsed, elevated, insulated and just a few weeks ago, reinstated by the OG over the objections of outraged voters

Richland Two’s School Board Chair publicly confirms his support for the divisive, self-serving OG practices of the Superintendent, while they continue to disregard the voices of the majority, diminish the District’s diversity and discreetly plot to put even more of their cronies into high-paying positions at the District Office (“DO”)

Yeah…the OG is a narcissistic and seemingly invincible force, alright…united by greed and loyal only to that which strengthens and preserves their power.

Never principle. Never people.

Not surprisingly, I’m OG Enemy #1. Among their “faves” are threats to “take me out” (of this House seat) by finding and supporting an opponent who will advance their agenda. Self-preservation is always rule #1 in the OG’s handbook. Anyone who exposes their dirty deeds becomes their number one target.

And after two years of trying, looks like the OG has found me a “doozie” of a primary opponent…one that’s obviously in sync with their core mission. Disbarred for almost a decade, publicly reprimanded for “misusing” his clients’ money…now, that’s their kinda politician.

But before they get too excited, here’s a newsflash…

I write my own stuff…every word. My voice is not attached to or contingent upon “this seat” in the SC House. Neither is my ability to fight for what’s right. So whether I’m fighting “the system” at the State House or relaxing in the comfort of my own house, I won’t be bullied. I refuse to be silenced. And I definitely ain’t scared.

By now, even they realize…that’s the difference.

On June 10th, tell the OG they’ve got to GO! Vote to re-elect Mia for House District 79!

And my reaction is this: You may be right that the people of your district didn’t “didn’t send me to the State House to make new friends or become a willing participant.” But presumably they did send you there to be effective, and that means playing well with others and not being a constant irritant so that no one wants to work with you. Which I’m not saying Mia is. But her emails can really come across that way.

It’s understandable to take pride that “I write my own stuff…every word.” But maybe she could use a good editor.

Bottom line, there’s nothing wrong with being a politician. Yeah, they can be smarmy and phony and off-putting, but only if they’re not good at it.

You can have all the principles and dedication to public service in the world, and if you lack basic political skills, you’re not going to be much good to the public, or to anyone. I’d like to have seen someone with Jimmy Carter’s principles have the skills of Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan.

Richard Nixon was a guy with some decent policy ideas, but was dragged down by his many character flaws, including among them an inability to interact with other human beings in a way that wasn’t off-putting.

A politician is a person who is good at working with other human beings to get things done. And that’s not a bad thing to be, in and of itself.

No decision in Harrell/Wilson case

36 Replies

QOfGr.AuSt.74

Three things to note from hearing this morning in Speaker Bobby Harrell’s effort to keep Attorney General Alan Wilson from prosecuting him:

  1. John Monk is making good use of Twitter today in covering this. For a blow-by-blow account, check his feed — including photos.
  2. As pictured above, the state’s last three AGs are standing behind Wilson in defense of his obvious constitutional authority in this matter. I hope The State doesn’t mind my showing this to you, seeing as how I’m urging you to go read their coverage and all. (And if they do, I’ll take it down immediately.)
  3. The judge put off a decision for a week. What Judge Manning is finding so tough about this bewilders me. Harrell hasn’t a leg to stand on.

Cindi Scoppe’s rather devastating column this morning on Bobby Harrell and the SC House

23 Replies

A few days ago, Kirkman Finlay, who is facing re-election to his House seat, started following me on Twitter.Finlay egg

I immediately saw that he could probably use some help with social media. His avatar is still, as Valentine Michael Smith would say, only an egg.

He could probably also use some help explaining to voters his bill, H.4453, which seems designed to help out Speaker Bobby Harrell by making the illegal things he’s been suspected of doing legal.

That bill suddenly started getting acted upon in the House as it became apparent that Harrell’s attempt to secretly toss Attorney General Alan Wilson off his case was doomed to fail.

But that’s just the beginning. You really need to read Cindi Scoppe’s remarkable column today, which tied together a web of House initiatives that seem reminiscent of the way Silvio Berlusconi’s legislative allies kept legislating him out of trouble, by making the illegal legal.

As I said, H.4453 is only the beginning:

Then, in the most audacious move to date, 85 House members last week filed H.5072, which would empower the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct State Grand Jury investigations into the attorney general and other “constitutional officers.” One of the initial sponsors — Wilson campaign attorney and Democratic Rep. James Smith — said that term also covers legislators, which means it would allow the speaker and president pro tempore to stop any attorney general investigations of legislators.

Of course the bill wouldn’t actually accomplish that because our state constitution names the attorney general as “the chief prosecuting officer of the State with authority to supervise the prosecution of all criminal cases in courts of record.” So the sponsors — led by Kris Crawford, against whom Mr. Wilson’s predecessor, Henry McMaster, brought tax-evasion charges in 2010 — also filed H.5073 to remove that language from the constitution.

If that passed, not only would the speaker and president pro tempore be able to stop any attorney general investigations, or initiate investigations into the attorney general, but the Legislature would be free to strip attorneys general of all power. The House unanimously agreed to bypass the committee process for both measures and place them on the calendar for immediate debate, an extraordinary thing to do for anything other than congratulatory resolutions and local legislation.

Let’s recap: I count five attempts in a year by Mr. Harrell’s friends to intimidate the attorney general or else quash first a SLED investigation and now a Grand Jury investigation. Which seems like a lot for someone who insists he hasn’t committed any crimes — or even violated any non-criminal provisions of the ethics law….

Wow, huh? (The boldface emphasis is mine.)

John Monk did good work recently revealing the move to get Wilson secretly tossed off the case. But this masterful column paints a picture of a pattern far more sweeping, and more disturbing, than that. It’s the kind of thing that reminds us why we have a First Amendment.

Good job, Cindi.