The next number twoThe race is on for lieutenant governor's seatBy Bill Davis, senior editor SEPT. 25, 2009 – Like never before, it’s clear to South Carolina voters that their lieutenant governor is just one wrong turn – such as perhaps a trip to Argentina – away from being elevated to the state’s top job, according to four men running for the number two slot.
 In another time, the race to succeed Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer next year could have been an overlooked “down-ballot” fight. But thanks to scandals swirling around Gov. Mark Sanford, a potential impeachment and the possible removal of the governor, voters will have a lot more to weigh in the coming election season.
The four announced candidates, all Republicans, are state Reps. Tim Scott and Ted Pitts, Florence County Councilman Ken Ard and Orangeburg lawyer Bill Connor. Former S.C. Rep. Robert Barber, the Charleston Democrat who narrowly lost to Bauer three years ago, said this week he was seriously considering announcing his candidacy in the next few days.
Scott |
“Sarah Palin and Gov. Sanford have shown the voters the reality that governors leave, that governors get in trouble,” said state Rep. Tim Scott (R-Charleston), a Charleston-area insurance agent and the only black Republican to serve in the House since Reconstruction. Sanford nominated Scott to replace Thomas Ravenel as the state Treasurer.
“Voters this time around will have to vote for a person they think could become governor, either down the road or down the way” said Connor, an insurance lawyer and military veteran, who said he welcomed the added scrutiny.
Connor |
And because of the increased attention, all of the four announced candidates agree that whoever wins the Republican primary will have to spend between $750,000 and a $1 million.
That may come as a shock to some -- that candidates would raise and spend so much money for a part-time job that pays less than $50,000. Especially so, considering that state Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston) has said he didn’t want the lieutenant governor’s job if Bauer were to replace Sanford before his term ended.
Collectively, the four candidates have already raised close to $500,000 in campaign contributions, but their war chests will likely grow as the fundraising cycle continues and the economy begins to come out of recession.
Ard |
“I don’t know exactly how much it’s going to take, but, being a country boy, I just want more than the other guys,” said Ken Ard, a small businessman in Florence.
One place that all four candidates already agree on was the need in the future for their office to run on the same ballot in the general election as the governor, aping the way the president and vice president are elected nationally.
Pitts |
Scott and fellow candidate state Rep. Ted Pitts, a commercial real estate broker in Lexington, put forward a bill earlier this year to put the offices on the same ballot. It passed the House, and if passed by the Senate, could be voted on as a state constitutional amendment that would affect the 2014 state elections.
When asked which of the current GOP gubernatorial candidates he would prefer to align himself, Scott said, “next question,” before recovering and -- like the other candidates -- said he could work with any of them.
Another area where the four men share common ground is how to deal with the 400-pound gorilla: Sanford’s looming potential impeachment. None called directly for his removal.
Barber |
Ard said it was important that “the process be allowed to play out, so we can make decisions with all the information.”
Pitts said he has communicated directly with Sanford, but that he would not divulge his position publicly. “I will say this, he has not done what I would have done.”
Connor, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves who served three tours on active duty in Afghanistan, did not agree with how Sanford left the state to visit his mistress in South America. “Sometimes, I wouldn’t leave my men to go get badly needed supplies because it didn’t feel right.”
A lesson learned from the Sanford years appeared to be the need for a leader to get along with fellow legislators and members of the executive branch. Having seen the enmity between the legislative and executive branches the past seven years, all pitched themselves as facilitators and conduits.
Experience may be bellwether test
In the past, current Lt. Gov. Bauer referred to it as being “House-trained,” in that he had several terms of experience in the House before taking office.
Political experience on the state level seemed to be where the four diverged the most.
Pitts, who is trailing in the campaign fund-raising arena with only about $50,000 on-hand, has the most experience on the state level with six years in the House.
Scott has served only one term, or as Pitts quipped, “six months” because of the actual length of the session. Scott responded, saying his 15 years on Charleston County Council should count, and pointed out that he has had more leadership positions in his tenure -- including freshman caucus chair -- than Pitts in his three terms.
Ard’s roots are also in county government, where he began as a “government-hating” commissioner before seeing the light. Like Connor, Ard has never served on the state level.
Unlike the other three candidates, Connor has never been elected to any public position. But following in the example of other soldiers before him, like Eisenhower, he said he was counting on his military experience to help sway the public.
Connor joked that while Eisenhower made the jump to the White House from being the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, the public service move from the battlefields of Afghanistan to presiding over the state Senate and the Office of Aging made sense.
Crystal ball: The money race is going to be a lot tighter than the candidates have been saying. One longtime state pol pointed out that they’ll be competing for the same donation dollars as their party’s gubernatorial candidates. “If any one of these guys thinks they’re going to raise $1 million in eight months and they’re only sitting on $100,000 to $150,000 right now, in this economy … well, they just aren’t being realistic.”
|
Dealing with nightmaresAn ongoing discussion to split the state Department of Health and Environmental Control and make it a cabinet agency highlights the ongoing trend in the Statehouse debates over restructuring: move the nightmare agencies that get all the negative headlines off the legislature’s plate and into the governor’s lap.
|
Resurging Dems?
The S.C. Democratic Party took some criticism the last election cycle for putting up a thin roster of candidates, highlighted by a Republican in Democratic clothing mounting a last-second campaign against Congressman Lindsey Graham.
This election, the Dems seem stronger with five gubernatorial candidates -- state Sens. Vincent Sheheen and Robert Ford, lobbyist/lawyer Dwight Drake, attorney Mullins McLeod and state Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, the only Dem to hold statewide office.
To succeed Rex, Greenville lawyer Frank Holleman has stepped forward, and as the former chief of staff to Dick Riley at the U.S. Department of Education, has a serious resume.
Former state Rep. Robert Barber is considering seriously running for lieutenant governor, a race he narrowly lost three years ago.
State Democratic Party chair Carol Fowler this week said she also had a candidate about to announce to take on U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), but is withholding his and others’ names. “It’s a candidate’s job to announce.”
Holla back
State Sen. Phil Leventis (D-Sumter) said he would keep harping on Gov. Mark Sanford next week if the governor hasn’t responded to his public letter for the removal of Jon Ozmint as the head of the state Department of Corrections.
Leventis, citing a host of alleged issues, sent the letter to the governor’s office two weeks ago [Statehouse Report exclusive]. Leventis said for Sanford to not respond to his letter would be a “dereliction of duty” that would eclipse his flying first class. Sanford’s office had not responded with a comment by deadline.
|
Riley pushing beefier anti-crime measuresBy Andy Brack, editor and publisher
SEPT. 25, 2009 – Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr. is pushing a package of legislation that seeks to give police more tools to keep bad guys off the streets.
 “We have some people who are arrested and out on bail for 13 different offenses,” Riley told the Rotary Club of Charleston this week. He went on to highlight how a person out on bail later was accused of killing someone.
“For the safety of the community, you shouldn’t get out on bond” if you’ve got a history of violence, Riley said.
“We need more tools in the toolbox to be able to deal with crime and gangs,” said Reba Campbell of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. “His proposals take a proactive approach and we’ve been very supportive of that.”
Riley has been pushing legislation that will allow courts to deny bail to someone who is arrested for a violent offense while already out on bond for a different offense.
“The bill protects our communities by allowing the court to deny bail if no conditions can reasonably assure the safety of any person or the community if the offender is released,” according to a written explanation in the mayor’s legislative crime packet.
Currently, judges can deny bond if they think someone poses a threat to the community, but in reality courts often don’t, according to an explanation of S. 6, a bill currently in a Senate subcommittee.
While the idea merits consideration, the state needs to be cautious about “overfixing” a problem for the whole state that may only be a problem in Charleston, warned state Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg.
Riley |
Another of Riley’s proposals passed the Senate earlier this year, but may face more difficulty in the House, Hutto said. The bill, S. 191, would allow police to conduct warrantless searches of people on probation and parole in an effort to stem criminal activity.
“It is well established that criminal defendants who return to the same environment as before are likely to repeat their criminal activity,” according to a position paper on the bill. “This bill is aimed at reducing recidivism by attaching as a condition of granting probation or parole that a criminal defendant consent to warrantless searches of his/her person or property by law enforcement officers, and probation and parole officers.
“If criminal defendants know that they can be searched day or night by law enforcement officers, they are less likely to engage in criminal activity.”
While such searches in California have been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, there are questions about the rights of non-parolees or non-probationers who might get caught up in a search. What if, for example, police conducted a warrantless search on someone’s home when a parolee was inside? Wouldn’t that invade the owner’s property in violation of the Constitution? Wouldn’t such a law also tend to create an environment for potential harassment, even though the proposed law says the statute couldn’t be used for harassment?
“It could be used abusively with some police officers,” Columbia attorney Tom Turnipseed admitted, adding that people on parole or probation didn’t have their full rights back when they were allowed to return to a community.
Other features of Riley’s crime-fighting package include stopping convicted criminals of possessing handguns or assault weapons; a new offense for possessing a gun while selling, making or possessing drugs for distribution; a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill; and a truth-in-sentencing measure that requires convicts to serve at least 85 percent of sentences.
State legislators need to take appropriate steps to ensure that communities are safe and that police need to have to tools they need. But lawmakers also need to ensure that safety concerns are properly balanced with privacy and constitutional issues. What may work for California may not necessarily work for South Carolina.
|
ACLU of South Carolina The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring SC Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This week's spotlighted underwriter is the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU of South Carolina’s National Office in Charleston is dedicated to preserving the civil liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Through communications, lobbying and litigation, the ACLU South Carolina’s National Office works to preserve and enhance the rights of all citizens of South Carolina. Foremost among these rights are freedom of speech and religion, the right to equal treatment under law, and the right to privacy. More: http://www.aclusouthcarolina.org/
|
Stimulus not going to teachers, policeBy Geoff Pallay
S.C. Policy Council
Special to S.C. Statehouse Report
SEPT. 25, 2009 -- Last session, legislative leaders argued South Carolina needed every dollar of the state’s $2.8 billion federal stimulus to preserve essential government functions. Without the money, claimed House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R-Charleston), the state would be forced to “lay off as many as 5,000 teachers and close down several prisons.”
 To fully understand why the threats about layoffs were made, it is important to understand how this year’s budget differed from typical appropriations bills.
Usually the budget has two sections – Part IA (appropriations) and IB (provisos). For FY09-2010, the legislature added another section: Part III (Part II merely being a placeholder). Called the State Stabilization Fund, Part III was devoted exclusively to using $694 million in disputed federal stimulus dollars “to create jobs.”
Note that Part III nowhere mentions teaching jobs or law enforcement jobs – just jobs. In any case, it remains true that education and corrections funding make up the bulk of the money allocated in Part III. This was intentional so as to force the governor, as well as any recalcitrant legislators, to support this section of the budget. In other words, the Senate Finance Committee specifically crafted the budget so that without the State Stabilization Fund, education and law enforcement funding would have been cut in Parts IA and IB.
Putting the pieces together, what all this means is that Part III was not about funding education and corrections at all. But about finding a way to continue to fund all those other nonessential programs that should have been cut in a tight budget year.
Moreover, a casual review of Part III shows many programs receiving the disputed stimulus funds have little to do with education or corrections.
Spoleto Festival: $100,000
Spoleto Festival USA should be able to exist without state funding and could pursue alternatives – reducing shows, raising ticket prices, pursuing more private grants – that don’t require taxpayer funds. Needless to say, $100,000 for the Spoleto has nothing to do with saving essential teaching and law enforcement positions. Rather, it’s a subsidy for the tourism industry in Charleston.
Southeastern Wildlife Exposition: $100,000
The Southeastern Wildlife Exposition (SEWE) will be using its share of your tax dollars for operating and marketing costs. The SEWE budget is about $2.2 million. Given the popularity of the SEWE, it’s difficult to see why the exposition wouldn’t be able to raise funds by obtaining additional sponsorships or increasing ticket prices.
Department of Agriculture: $250,000
The Agriculture Department plans to use its share of the stimulus for either marketing or to make up general budget cuts. The Department’s marketing budget was slashed by about $1 million for FY09-2010 – and with good reason, considering such ill conceived ideas as the Palmettovore ad campaign.
Arts Commission: $400,000
The Arts Commission indicated it will disburse most of its stimulus funding in the form of grants – but none of them to save teacher’s jobs or keep convicts off the streets. For example, the Hilton Head Symphony Orchestra will receive $10,925 so as to avoid cancelling one show.
Clemson University PSA: $2,500,000
Clemson plans to use its funding on research farm services (dairy, bee farms) and for 4-H youth camp programs. Their approach is to take this funding – knowing it is a one-time appropriation – and put it in revenue generating programs. That is a good idea … but the real question is why can’t these programs be self-sustaining in the first place?
Festivals, concerts, and agricultural marketing. That’s what the stimulus dollars dedicated to saving teaching and law enforcement jobs are being used for. Sounds like a real crisis.
If you'd like to submit a MY TURN commentary of up to 600 words on a state policy or political issue, please send to: feedback@statehousereport.com
|
Redistricting IS criticalTo the editor:
That was a fine article [on redistricting] in Statehouse Report. The least desirable consequence, in my mind, is the lack of opposition to incumbents in so many districts and the resulting absence of discussion and debate about the many critical issues facing the State.
-- Leo Fishman, Kiawah Island, SC
We encourage you to submit a letter to the editor of up to 250 words. Please send to:
|
Up, down and in the middle BMW. The Upstate economic catalyst is to add another shift of workers as economy rebounds; may that trend continue! More: Greenville News.
BEA. The state Board of Economic Advisors said tax revenues were “on track” and didn’t cut the state budget. When was the last time both those things happened? Mesozoic? More: The State.
 Hugo. Memories and scars remain of its rampage across South Carolina; on the plus side, it was 20 years ago this week.
Sneaky. Illegal immigrants bring $1.8 billion to state economy. They’re here, but at least they’re spending. More: SC Radio Network.
 Jenny. First Lady Jenny Sanford, as the aggrieved wife, first begged for privacy for her family to heal, then did a spread in a national mag, sent friends to the Today show couch, and is now writing a memoir? Huh? More: CNN.
Insurance. One on six South Carolinians has no health care insurance. More: Post and Courier.
|
|
|