Talk About Illustrating My Point…
February 6, 2008
The FITS folks call him, “The Littlest Digger.” He’s Hugh Leatherman, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He’s notorious for wielding his influence to scare the beejezus out of everyone except for Senator McConnell, and for more than a week, the Senate grappled with one of his bills (S.714).
I mentioned S714 earlier today in a discussion about the Bar Association president’s contempt for free speech, but it really is a dangerous bill.
The bill’s original purpose was to virtually cut off donations to issue/political awareness groups by requiring detailed donors information for 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations.
There’s just one problem with that, and today some Senators like Kevin Bryant from Anderson actually bucked up to Chairman Leatherman and said, I’m paraphrasing, “This is unconstitutional.”
He essentially said we cannot ban a group of people for forming an organization with an issue focus, and he knew that by forcing donors to disclose their information, contributions would dry up, and the organization would disappear with only a wimper.
Even Senator Jim Ritchie from Spartanburg said that he has opposition this election and that he already expects some of these groups to produce issue communications in his district. He added that just because the Senate didn’t like the messages the groups might convey there is no legal justification to prevent them from speaking.
Senator Ritchie, that took guts — especially since the bill’s rationale for existing is that many of its sponsors are on the governor’s so-called “hit list.”
Just to run a quick comparison:
- S.714 Sponsors: Senators Leatherman, Reese, Alexander, Patterson, Moore, Thomas, Williams, Ford, Hutto, Malloy, Anderson, Martin, Elliott, Land, O’Dell, Cleary, Rankin, Knotts, Scott, Cromer, Matthews, Pinckney, McGill, Hayes, Drummond, Hawkins, Lourie and Jackson
- Senators on the “Hit List:” Alexander, Drummond (open), Elliott, Hawkins (open), Hayes, Knotts, Leatherman, Leventis, Martin, Rankin, Short (open)
In other words, every senator on the “hit list” is a sponsor of S.714 except for Senators Leventis and Short.
Unfortunately, the bill’s proponents couldn’t keep their stories straight during the floor debate. While they tried to make it sound like the bill was written in the spirit of altruism, they made frequent mention of groups “out to get them” who would “get involved” their elections.
Senator Leatherman went so far as to call out two groups (Carolinians for Reform and Reform SC) and admit that he was worried about someone “getting involved” in his race.
You see, that’s where this is all coming from. It’s not about sunlight, transparency, or campaign finance reform. It’s about creating obstacles to prevent groups of citizens from getting together.
What we tend to forget sometimes is that speech has many forms, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that. Speech may take the form of someone shouting from the courthouse steps, it may be a metaphorical action, or it may be silent and anonymous like donating to a political awareness organization. It’s speech nonetheless.
We cannot get to the point where we condone these actions. We have the Bar Association saying we shouldn’t be involved in judicial races. We have the Senate saying we shouldn’t highlight members’ votes and educate our neighbors. Earl Capps at the Blogland tells of a story in Berkeley County where apparently the GOP chair who is trying to work through the legal system to have a breakfast club dissolved and its moderator arrested.
I’m not trying to come off like some nutjob, but there are some folks in Columbia and around the state who have a hint of power and will do anything not to give it up. They cannot be successful. If they are, so begins the proverbial “slippery slope.”
– Wilson Charles
UPDATE: If you haven’t really kept up with this debate, Senator Kevin Bryant is like Clark Kent. The only difference besides the accent is that instead of changing from mild-mannered reporter in to Superman, he transforms from mild-mannered pharmacist in to constitutional lawyer. Seriously, if you haven’t really paid attention to this debate, Senator Bryant was a real leader in challenging the constitutionality of S.714 (see HERE and HERE).
Entry Filed under: Wilson Charles -- Politics and Finance. Tags: 1st Amendment, Berkeley County, Earl Capps, Glenn McConnell, Hugh Leatherman, Kevin Bryant, Mark Sanford.
13 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1. The Leatherman Regulation&hellip | February 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm
[...] Of course, that becomes fairly easy to do when they break big stories, or blow the lid off of a Soviet-style speech purge currently taking place in the South Carolina Supreme Socialist (a.k.a. the State [...]
2.
Harden Gervais | February 6, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Keep up the bulls__t. It’s nice to see what SCRG (and S.C. Policy Council, and Howard Rich, and Mallory Factor, and the myriad of other ridiculous organizations) is pimping these days. Otherwise, how would we know?
3.
Frank | February 6, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I don’t understand your post. It seems to me that the Senate is attempting to regulate donations, and the accountability and transparency of secret groups. They have not attempted to regulate speech…just the public’s right to know WHO is speaking.
501c4 (and the rest of the nonprofits) are granted special privileges by law, and therefore accept the responsibility and regulations that comes along with those privileges. ..the special privilege of note with the c4 is that contributions are UNLIMITED, and lobbying expenses are UNLIMITED. Therefore, in secret a few rich people can have virtually unlimited speech…while the rest of us can only whisper.
A couple of other points…Often a non-profit groups will have two related entities – one a 501(c)(3) and another a 501(c)(4). Under the tax code provisions it is perfectly legal to transfer funds from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(c)(4)organization. However, the restrictions on how funds are spent by the original 501(c)(3) carry over on the funds transferred to the 501(c)(4).
Thus, a tax deductable donation can become a rich mans free speech in a political debate.
So you can see these nonprofits rob us of knowing who has the ability to shape our government. I think the public has the right to know, and thank the Senate for making a step in the right direction.
4.
Greenville | February 6, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Mark Sanford has raised MILLIONS of dollars from secret, out of state contributors…and the Senate thinks it is a good idea that the people of SC know exactly who it is that has bought Mark Sanford and Company.
I agree with them…why would these out of state fat cats give a small state governor MILLIONS of dollars unless the greedy bastards giving the money stood to gain.
I suppose a 7.4 billion dollar budget might have something to do with it…that is a hell of a lot of money, and the governor has direct control over about half of it…and has significant influence on much of the rest. Ya think anybody got “payback” for stuffing Sanford’s pockets??? Ya think?
We need sunlight…disclose it all!!! Disclose it now.
5.
otherbrooksbrother | February 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm
To: Harden Gervais
I hope you don’t mind, but I asked Wilson if he cared if I responded to your comment. He said that was fine, so here goes.
First, thanks for stopping by. We really appreciate the time you took to swing over.
Second, if you’re coming over to our place to visit, don’t be such a foul-mouthed douche bag, you prick.
Third, I was talking with some other Columbia friends like Elmwood Assembly, Woodrow Lee, and the slightly inbred socialite Harbison Interstate XXVI. We came to the same conclusion. Enough with the black helicopters.
Just because somebody thinks the educational system stinks (look at the stats), spending is out of control (the state went through $3.5 billion in surplus revenue in 3 years), and people like Leatherman are introducing legislation to save their political careers (listen to his floor speech today) doesn’t mean they are SCRG shills. Some of us actually believed in conservative values and constitutional protections before they ever opened shop.
I hope I addressed your concerns satisfactorily. Now, go drive in to a bridge abutment.
– Bo Burdette
6.
otherbrooksbrother | February 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Frank,
I understand your point and appreciate you making it.
I might buy your argument if I hadn’t actually seen and heard officials like Senator Leatherman be so transparent today on the floor when discussing their bill.
They made it clear that this was not about sunlight as the greatest disinfectant. This bill is about saving their political skins. They were the ones who talked about people getting involved in their elections.
The “sunlight” argument was a red herring, and a thinly disguised one at that.
– Wilson Charles
7.
otherbrooksbrother | February 6, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Greenville,
Let me preface this by saying that I think Governor Sanford has really made a mess of things over the years.
His unwillingness to make friends with the legislature has made it nearly impossible to get anything substantive accomplished. Pretty much calling the General Assembly a bunch of racists during this year’s State of the State (See: http://otherbrooksbrother.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/how-to-win-friends-influence-people-the-mark-sanford-way) didn’t win a lot of friends, either.
That said, I have to disagree with you. Just because Mark Sanford was elected governor, he didn’t give up his free speech rights. He remains an individual entitled to his own opinion about candidates for office just like you or me.
Now I know, and I’ve said this before, that it’s not a generally accepted practice for a sitting governor to overtly attempt to defeat incumbent legislators, but he still has the right to make his opinions known. If there are several people who agree with his line of thinking but they are too intimidated to have their names in print or simply want to remain anonymous, speech through financial contributions is their right.
It is often said that one person’s right’s end when they infringe on those of others. I agree with that most of the time, and that includes this situation.
If people want to give money anonymously but are not allowed to do so under the auspices of the public’s right to know (which is not necessarily a guarantee), we cut donors’ rights to free speech by erecting obstacles so intimidating that people are prevented from exercising their rights. To me, that result is even more offensive.
– Wilson Charles
8.
Frank | February 6, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Wilson,
Thanks for the kind reply.
I am a bit surprised that you are concerned about what may or may not be the motives of the Senators. I am not swayed either way by their ramblings, but I am persuaded that my right to know who is paying for the “free” speech should not be subservient to those that wish to hide their identities. Bill Gates has more free speech than I …and I can live without that as long as I know Bill Gates is paying for the speech.
Mark Sanford has bundled money from people that may in fact be WORSE than Leatherman…but Sanford aggressively hides the identity of those wishing to speak anonymously. This is repugnant to me as a free man, and a conservative.
Moreover, Mark Sanford benefits politically, and possibly personally, from the nearly 6 million dollars he has stashed in his “slush” funds.. While he may not at present have to disclose the names of his cronies, it is the honorable thing to do. He is our Governor, and he has a fiduciary responsibility to make every effort to be as transparent as possible. He is accountable to us…and he should disclose that information promptly and without error.
Our State government is a mess because 90 percent of what goes on in Columbia is done in secret. Conservatives should band together and require accountability and transparency in every action.
9.
Greenville | February 6, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I don’t care a wit about Sanford going after legislators. As far as I am concerned, throw them all out and start over.
But to say Mark Sanford, who…
1. Is quoted in the paper every day,
2. Is on TV and radio regularly,
3. Has a press office and web page paid for by the taxpayers of South Carolina,
4. Has a wife with her own press person (paid for by the tax payers of SC)
5. Has a sophisticated campaign and a State Republican Party apparatus,
…is losing his free speech rights because he can no longer collect millions of dollars from rich out-of-state fat cats in secret…is whacked!
Hey, Sanford is supposed to be on the taxpayers payroll. But as long as rich out of state people can secretly give him millions, I assume he is on theirs. In fact, assuming he is working for that bunch is the only way I can make sense of half the crap he does…because he sure is not representing me!
The average people are not represented in Cola. It seems that only the rich people like plantation owner Mark Sanford are. I say disclose now. Disclose it all…and let us see who actually is being represented by Sanford.
10.
Harden Gervais | February 7, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Bo, there are no black helicopters if it’s all backed by hard evidence. Of course, that’s why you and your friends are fighting transparency among these groups.
11.
otherbrooksbrother | February 7, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Harden,
Thanks for ticking it down a notch this time. I don’t know what your hard evidence is, but you may want to check your source again.
I’m just a big kid stuck in the 80s who can’t give up hair metal or Ronald Reagan.
As far as hard facts go, take a look at today’s Senate vote. They went 41-0 to send it back to committee. That HARDLY EVER happens, but they knew that the bill was (as McConnell told them) unconstitutional.
That’s a case of actions speaking louder than words.
– Bo
12.
Greenville | February 7, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Bo,
The bill may or may not be well written or a good idea. But the larger point is do we want our governor or other high officers raising MILLIONS of dollars in private? And either using that moeny to affect public policy or convert it to his personal use?
It is just bad….plan, old fashion bad.
The people have a right to know who is paying our governor…and he should tell us. And he should tell us now.
13. Sen. Kevin Bryant: blog f&hellip | February 11, 2008 at 3:51 pm
[...] I’ve made a respectable impression over at the other brooks brothers and their sister’s blog. They seem to have liked the opposition to the “gag-bill” S. 714 last week.I’m [...]