In yesterday’s The State, columnist John Monk actually surprised me. I knew his piece would blast out-of-state donors, but it wasn’t nearly as biased as anyone would expect from the left-leaning Monk.
Honestly, one of my biggest problems came from the article’s reliance on a mean-spirited, on-again/off-again blogger who blasts conservative policies and shares a name with some of the state’s political talent while having little of the success or notoriety.
According to Monk, Representative Herb Kirsh (D-Clover), who was elected to the House shortly after the earth cooled, wants to place further limits on campaign contributions.
Mr. Monk asserts that New Yorker Howard Rich contributes money to South Carolina political campaigns using various businesses he owns. Representative Kirsh and those who agree with him constantly ask, “Do we want some New Yorker having his say in South Carolina politics?”
I don’t know. After all, Herb Kirsh is from New York City and has had his say in the House since 1979.
His newest bill, which hasn’t even been filed (I’m sensing possible collusion between the Fourth Estate and a certain legislator) would ban contributions from companies owned by the same person to make separate campaign contributions in South Carolina.
That means that the president of Company A who wants to make a company contribution to a candidate because he or she likes that candidate’s position would be barred from political participation if the president of Company B already contributed to that candidate and the companies happened to be owned by the same person.
It’s another bill seeking to limit political participation, but the reason here is transparently self-serving by the legislation’s supporters.
According to Monk’s piece, “(Herb) Hayden, who in 1991 attended legislative hearings on the Ethics Act, said no one then dreamed anyone would use multiple corporations to funnel money to candidates. Kirsh said the loophole allows individuals like Rich, who have multiple corporations, to alter the balance of power in the General Assembly.”
Herb Hayden (Executive Director of the SC State Ethics Commission) is, from what I hear from people in political circles, a genuinely nice guy. I’m going to disagree with him wholeheartedly, though.
The architects of 1991 campaign finance reform legislation left the loopholes in because they would benefit.
Remember, in 1991 we were in the middle of Operation Lost Trust, and the legislature was solidly Democrat. The ethics laws were written in a way that protected Democrat lawmakers. They short-sightedly did not plan for the day when they weren’t on the receiving ends of most of the deep-pocketed donors.
Now that someone is supposedly using the exemptions Democrats created/overlooked, they and the incumbent Republicans who were allegedly “targeted” by these donations are crying, “Foul.”
John Freeman, ethics professor at USC School of Law even agrees that there is nothing illegal about Mr. Rich’s activities, telling Mr. Monk, “I don’t fault Mr. Rich at all.”
I will take issue with one of Mr. Freeman’s statements, though. He said, “It’s one thing when the citizens of a state say we are being ill served by lawmaker X or Y or Z, but when you get a person from a foreign state who maybe has never visited South Carolina trying to influence elections, I’m not sure what that has to do with democracy as opposed to buying influence.”
I think the answer is simple. An incumbent will almost always have the advantage – from the voter base to fundraising. Companies and individuals will more readily support the guy or gal who already has the legislative vote. Where is a challenger to turn to get his or her message to the voters? How about wherever he or she can to find a sympathetic ear and a supportive wallet?
If I’m running for office, I’m going to ask anyone and everyone who will further my campaign, and it shouldn’t be up to the state to keep me from raising money to get out my message. That’s what it has to do with democracy, Mr. Freeman.
Continuing to focus on campaign finance “reform” solely to benefit the current officeholders, no matter what the fake excuse might be, hurts a competitive campaign system. Of course, that’s what Mr. Kirsh and his allies want to keep them in office.
We’ve seen it so many times. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – as long as the gander never receives the benefits of what the goose gets.
– Wilson Charles
I came across this in the House Journal today… I cannot see how it is relevant to South Carolina. What do yall think?
Let’s be honest. He probably won’t be 
With the 
If we read the names separately, neither “Nathan” nor “Ballentine” would invoke an image that said, “I kick a__.” Frankly, either sounds like a freshman who got a swirlie from a high school senior.
Remember the old Mounds/Almond Joy commercial? “
According to the 
I’m as serious as the shine on his head.
