When Howard Rich decided to kick in his dollars for the 2010 primary cycle, his choices were of a better nature than last time, considering that in a lot of races, the candidates who accepted money had a better-than-average chance of winning. Even two guys who he gave money to try to beat last time — Bill Sandifer and Mike Sottile come to mind — are now considered OK. And speaking of stacking the deck, two gentlemen on this list were already virtually guaranteed to return to the House next year.
BILL SANDIFER
Republican, House District 2, won primary
Contributions: $18,025
Expenditures: $54,481.81
Cash on hand: $39,805.08
Significant contributions
188 Claremont LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
470 W 116 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
332 E. 11 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Bradford Management of N.Y., $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Free and Strong America PAC, $1,000
Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney’s PAC
Significant expenditures
Homeyer Strategy Group (consulting), $12,363.90
Jason Puhlaski (consulting), $1,540.84, $1,913.12, $5,000
Rod Shealy (mail), $8,274
On The Mark (mail), $11,892.32
DON BOWEN
Republican, House District 8, no primary
Contributions: $24,174.10
(In-kind: $100)
Expenditures: $4,832.16
Cash on hand: $25,326.75
Significant contributions
470 W 166 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
188 Claremont LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
S.C. Leadership PAC, $1,000
Rep. Dan Cooper’s PAC
Palmetto Leadership Council, $1,000
Organization of Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
S.C. House Republican Caucus, $5,000
Legislative caucus
Palmetto Patriot Leadership Committee, $1,000
Organization of Rep. Alan Clemmons
Significant expenditures
None.
MIKE PITTS
Republican, House District 14, no primary
Contributions: $8,650
Expenditures, $2,608.93
Cash on hand: $48,409.91
Significant contributions
538-14 Realty LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
188 Claremont LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
332 E. 11 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Silver & Silver Properties, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Significant expenditures
None.
RICK QUINN
Republican, House District 69, won primary
Contributions: $18,185
Expenditures: $16,200.10
Cash on hand: $12,680
Significant contributions
HuckPAC, $500
Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee’s PAC
Palmetto Leadership Council, $1,000
Organization of Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
S.C. House Republican Caucus, $5,000
Legislative committee
Leon Stavrinakis, $150
State representative
Hall & Bowers, $1,000
Law firm
S.C. Club for Growth PAC, $1,000
Political action committee
Stillrich LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Significant expenditures
Mail Marketing Strategies (mail), $1,269.59, $2,608.20×4
Richard Quinn & Associates (consulting), $3,600
JIM HARRISON
Republican, House District 75, won primary
Contributions: $16,799.65
Expenditures: $0
Cash on hand: $95,511.17
Significant contributions
188 Claremont LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
470 W 166 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Significant expenditures
None.
ROLAND SMITH
Republican, House District 84, won primary
Contributions: $10,250
Expenditures: $6,798.15
Cash on hand: $63,766
Significant contributions
The SCEA Fund, $500
Public education group
470 W 166 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Conservation Voters of S.C., $500
Environmental organization
Significant expenditures
Zacher Media Strategies (mail, ads), $1,912.42, $3,805.86
NELSON HARDWICK
Republican, House District 106, won primary
Contributions: $12,100
Expenditures: $34,643.09
Cash on hand: $15,389.23
Significant contributions
Bradford Management of N.Y., $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
470 W 166 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Ripley’s Aquarium, $250
Attraction
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
188 Claremont LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Significant expenditures
Lucky Dog Television (ads), $27,500
MIKE SOTTILE
Republican, House District 112, won primary
Contributions: $17,700
Expenditures: $39,542.37
Cash on hand: $8,091.18
Significant contributions
West 14 & 18 LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Free and Strong America PAC, $250
Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney’s PAC
Coolcal LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Rich Lending Corporation, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Stillrich LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Bradford Management of N.Y., $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Silver & Silver Properties, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
123 Lasalle Associates, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
188 Claremont LLC, $1,000
Howard Rich shell company
Significant expenditures
Donehue Direct (consulting), $14,740.03, $7,511.80, $3,534.81, $2,023.60, $181.35, $10,485.43
Wednesday, the House Judiciary Constitutional Laws subcommittee unanimously passed H. 3489, a bill sponsored by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell and 45 co-sponsors. Reps. Greg Delleney, Jim Harrison, Walt McLeod and Garry Smith voted for the measure, with Rep. James Smith away on other business. The bill now goes to the full Judiciary Committee. Right now, it looks like it’s ready to go all the way.
One of the most significant changes to the law would be a limit on punitive damages — the larger amount of $350,000 or three times the compensatory damages award. Another is allowing into evidence if someone in an accident did not use a seat belt.
While we’re fairly certain the bill will make it out of committee, action when it comes up for second reading could be pretty interesting. From what we’ve been seeing, the S.C. Association for Justice is getting aggressive in its courting of legislators who may be on the fence or nominally for tort reform (mostly Republicans) to come over to its way of thinking, joining a sizable number of number of Democrats.
All signs point to this heating up behind the scenes, which can only mean that it’ll be hot when it hits the floor.
This year, it looks clearer than in most sessions that tort reform is going to get through the General Assembly. The House Republicans have made it a top priority of their’s, and in general the GOP leadership is behind the legislation. The wild card in this deal is the S.C. Association for Justice (still referred on disclosure reports as the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association). Several years ago, we heard a Democratic fundraiser complain that the trial lawyers were spreading money to both parties, while he was used to having the local TLA be an exclusively Democratic supporter. We’ll see what happens.
Yesterday, Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor sent letters to Rep. Jim Harrison and Sen. Larry Martin urging them to push through tort reform. Unlike some of the other legislative battles, we feel this one will be fought with dollars, influence and high-priced dinners, behind the scenes.Then you’ll see the cleaned-up version go on display in committees and in the chambers.
We’ve often said that what the leadership wants, the leadership gets. But, it’s not always so. This is a struggle that will not be settled early.
Taylor’s letter to Harrison:
TUESDAY
HOUSE
Introductions
- H. 4351, by Rep. Kenneth Hodges, to make it the policy of the state to promote microbusinesses — companies with five or fewer employees.
- H. 4352, by Hodges, to establish a study committee to promote and provide funds for the creation and growth of small businesses.
SENATE
Introductions
- S. 1058, by Sen. Larry Martin, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to abolish the office of lieutenant governor, and to make the necessary changes involving the incapacity or removal of the governor, and the order of succession.
- H. 4253, by Rep. Tim Scott, a concurrent resolution to urge the Department of Commerce to start a business recruitment initiative that emphasized South Carolina’s right-to-work status.
- H. 4299, by Rep. Dan Cooper, to allow spending flexibility among public schools in a number of areas.
Enrolled for ratification
- H. 3488, by Rep. James Smith, to develop a committee to address veterans’ issues.
Amended and adopted
- S. 424, by Sen. Lee Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments.
WEDNESDAY
HOUSE
Introductions
- H. 4373, by Rep. Dwight Loftis, to set up a state Department of Energy and provide for a director to be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, and eliminating the State Energy Office.
- H. 4385, by Rep. Michael Thompson, to reform the board of trustees for the University of South Carolina.
- H. 4386, by Thompson, to set term limits for public university boards of trustees.
Objection to recall
- H. 3952, by Rep. Chris Hart, to place a six-month moratorium on foreclosures and accrual of interest on certain mortgages. Hart asked to recall the bill from the Judiciary Committee, but Rep. Jim Harrison objected.
Sent to the Senate
- H. 3543, by Rep. Joan Brady, implementing a dating violence policy to help local school districts to develop their own policies and to create reporting requirements.
Debate adjourned
- H. 3280, by Rep. Tom Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the superintendent of education from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot. The bill is scheduled to be taken up again on Jan. 26.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 4318, by T. Young, a concurrent resolution to show the objection of the General Assembly to the Federal government’s abandoning of Yucca Mountain as the default storage location for nuclear waste.
SENATE
Introductions
- H. 4303, by Rep. Kenny Bingham, immediate reforms to the Employment Security Commission, including parameters for disqualifying some applicants and upgrading technology.
Reported out of committee favorably
- S. 1034, by Sen. Hugh Leatherman, to extend until Nov. 15, 2010 the deadline by which the Taxation Realignment Commission should submit its report and recommendations.
Motion for special order
- H. 3418, by Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, to require voters show a picture ID when voting. Martin moved to have the bill placed as special order, which failed 26-17.
- S. 391, by Sen. Greg Ryberg, to reform the Employment Security Commission. Sen. Nikki Setzler moved to place the bill as special order, which failed 18-23.
THURSDAY
HOUSE
Introductions
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments.
- H. 4410, by Rep. Alan Clemmons, to establish term limits for members of the House and Senate.
Recalled and sent back to committee
- H. 4385, by Thompson, to reform the board of trustees for the University of South Carolina. It was recalled from Judiciary and sent to Education and Public Works.
- H. 4351 and H. 4352, by Hodges, to make it the policy of the state to promote microbusinesses — companies with five or fewer employees; and to establish a study committee to promote and provide funds for the creation and growth of small businesses. Both bills were recalled from Ways and Means and sent to Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Adopted and sent to the Senate
- H. 4318, by T. Young, a concurrent resolution to show the objection of the General Assembly to the Federal government’s abandoning of Yucca Mountain as the default storage location for nuclear waste.
Reported out of committee favorably
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments.
SENATE
Introductions
- S. 1093, by Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, to rescind the current resolution setting a date and time for judicial elections.
- S. 1085 and S. 1086, by Leatherman, to increase from three to five percent the amount of revenue deposited into the General Reserve Fund, and other reforms pertaining to the move; a constitutional amendment doing the same.
- H. 3543, by Brady, implementing a dating violence policy to help local school districts to develop their own policies and to create reporting requirements.
- H. 4318, by T. Young, a concurrent resolution to show the objection of the General Assembly to the Federal government’s abandoning of Yucca Mountain as the default storage location for nuclear waste.
Carried over
- S. 1034, by Leatherman, to extend until Nov. 15, 2010 the deadline by which the Taxation Realignment Commission should submit its report and recommendations. Ryberg made the motion to carry over.
- S. 517, by Sen. Tom Davis, to prevent any part of state government from administratively raising a fee or penalty without said increase first being approved by the General Assembly. The provision would expire on Jan. 15, 2011. The bill was amended, and carried over per a motion by Leatherman.
QUOTES
Regarding letting House Minority Leader Harry Ott talk first on “This Week in the House.”
Bingham: Let him go ahead first, I don’t mind having the last word.
===
On the vote inviting the national commander of the American Legion.
Harrell: The resolution is inviting the national commander of the American Legion to speak to the body. We’re in a roll call vote on it. In other words, it’s a vote of whether or not you’re going to attend.
Ott: And we’re going to hold you to it if you vote yes.
(Laughter)
===
During the debate on the state sovereignty bill.
Sen. Phil Leventis: I’ve probably fired more bullets than you have. Why? Because I used to shoot them at 100 a second. Not for many seconds, but that’s how fast the gun shoots on the plane that I flew for about 20 years. And even though I did it maybe once a week, you know. So, we’ll leave that statement unchallenged that I fired more shells than y’all have, and then the next time we get up, you can assure me why I’m wrong about that.
===
During the discussion of the suit against the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.
Sen. Robert Ford: You know our colleagues in Charleston, our constituents. I mean, they’re always ready to fight.
McConnell: Now, Charleston can create crises around here.
This is why this feature needs to be done after each day the General Assembly is in session. Like a college football team playing its first game of the year, we were a little rusty out of the gate — and absent-mindedly short of AAA batteries for the voice recorder. Regardless, a lot happened in the first week of this year’s session, and here’s a few of the highlights.
TUESDAY
HOUSE
Statement from Rep. Ted Pitts
- Today, on the first day of the 2010 legislative year, it disappoints me that I cannot be there at the opening of what will be my last year as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives. If plans do not change, the next time I step on the floor of the House, it will be as a former member. Serving the County and State I love so much in the S.C. House has been one of the greatest honors of my life and the memories and friendships will be cherished. The House truly is a great institution, bigger than any one person and an embodiment of what our Founding Fathers intended, with South Carolinians deciding collectively through a representative democracy, what is best for South Carolina. During 2010, I have been called to serve our State and Country in a different place and on a different front. Like many after the attacks of 9/11, I found myself wanting to do my part to protect and defend the greatness of this Country. It is now my turn to go do my part in the ‘War on Terror’ as a Captain in the South Carolina National Guard, like Luke 12:48 says “To those much is given, much is expected.”
Special presentation
- Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell and the Charleston delegation presented former Rep. Wallace Scarborough with a showing of their thanks for his service in the General Assembly.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 4219, sponsored by Rep. Jim Harrison, a censure resolution of Gov. Mark Sanford. It was ordered to be taken up on Wednesday.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 1040, by Sen. Mike Rose, to allow games of Texas hold ‘em, or any other poker game, to be played at Federal military installations in the state, as permitted by the base commander.
Received from the House
- H. 4022, by Ted Pitts, to provide that firearms, ammunition and accessories manufactured and kept in South Carolina are exempt from Federal firearms laws.
Debate interrupted
- S. 424, by Sen. Lee Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. A strike-and-replace amendment to the bill was offered, to address actions by Congress relating to health care and bailouts. The action surprised Democrats, who began a filibuster.
WEDNESDAY
HOUSE
Motion
- Rep. Tom Young requested that the House adjourn in memory of former state Treasurer Grady Patterson.
Introduced
- H. 4298, by Rep. Joan Brady, related to reform of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
- H. 4299, by Rep. Dan Cooper, to allow spending flexibility among public schools in a number of areas.
- H. 4303, by Rep. Kenny Bingham, immediate reforms to the Employment Security Commission, including parameters for disqualifying some applicants and upgrading technology.
- H. 4327, By Rep. Mike Sottile, to provide an exception to Sunday beer and wines laws, so as to allow an establishment already allowed to sell beer and wine to purchase a permit that would allow them to sell on Sunday.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 4253, sponsored by Rep. Tim Scott, a concurrent resolution to urge the Department of Commerce to start a business recruitment initiative that emphasized South Carolina’s right-to-work status.
Ordered to third reading
- H. 3279, by T. Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the secretary of state from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot. It passed, 77-41.
Passed
- H. 4219, by Harrison, to censure the Governor. The concurrent resolution passed with a margin of 102-11. Most no votes were by Democrats who wanted to see a sterner resolution.
Debate adjourned
- Debate was adjourned for two bills relating to the budget until Feb. 2. One was the actual budget bill (H. 3561), and the other was a bill to amend the tax code (H. 3854, by Cooper).
- H. 3543, by Brady, implementing a dating violence policy to help local school districts to develop their own policies and to create reporting requirements. Rep. Walt McLeod wanted to see how much such a measure would cost, and requested the bill be taken back up on Jan. 20.
- H. 3280, by T. Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the superintendent of education from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot.
- H. 3608, by Rep. David Mack, to establish early voting centers, a way for a voter to register and vote early, and other matters related to the issue.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 1042, by Sen. Jake Knotts, to allow teachers to administer corporal punishment on school grounds without being subject to civil or criminal penalties, and extending that protection to administrators and the district.
Reported out of committee favorably
- H. 3488, by Rep. James Smith, to develop a committee to address veterans’ issues.
Recalled, sent to committee
- H. 4219, by Harrison, to censure the Governor. Knotts suggested that the bill should go through the normal committee process, and the resolution was sent to the Judiciary Committee.
Passed on second reading
- S. 1027, by Sen. Yancey McGill, to prohibit hunters from using dogs on private property without permission.
Debate interrupted
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. A strike-and-replace amendment to the bill was offered, to address actions by Congress relating to health care and bailouts. Democrats continued their filibuster.
THURSDAY
HOUSE
Special presentation
- Harrell and the Charleston delegation presented Mack with his Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Picture Award for “going above and beyond” his service to the community.
Introduced
- H. 4336, by Cooper, to extend the deadline for a report and recommendations from the Taxation Realignment Commission from March 15 to Nov. 15.
- H. 4348, by Rep. Anton Gunn, to require minutes of full committees and subcommittees of the House be recorded by voice recorder, archived, available online and to require that votes on all actions be taken by roll call vote.
Ordered to third reading
- H. 4299, by Cooper, to allow spending flexibility among public schools in a number of areas.
Ordered to third reading, as amended
- H. 4303, by Bingham, immediate reforms to the Employment Security Commission, including parameters for disqualifying some applicants and upgrading technology. It passed, 112-1.
Rejected
- H. 3279, by T. Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the secretary of state from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot. It failed by lacking a two-thirds majority, 72-38.
Adopted and sent to Senate
- H. 4253, sponsored by Scott, a concurrent resolution to urge the Department of Commerce to start a business recruitment initiative that emphasized South Carolina’s right-to-work status.
Debate adjourned
- H. 3280, by T. Young, to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the voters to decide as to whether they would support removing the superintendent of education from the number of constitutional officers on the ballot.
SENATE
Introduced
- S. 1053, by Sen. Glenn McConnell, to mandate that no fee, penalty or tax can be raised in the general appropriations bill, and only by separate legislation, and to provide exemptions.
Passed on second reading as amended
- S. 517, by Sen. Tom Davis, to prevent any part of state government from administratively raising a fee or penalty without said increase first being approved by the General Assembly. The provision would expire at the end of the session.
Ordered to third reading
- H. 3488, by J.E. Smith, to develop a committee to address veterans’ issues.
Passed on third reading, sent to House
- S. 1027, by McGill, to prohibit hunters from using dogs on private property without permission, as amended by committee.
Debate interrupted
- S. 424, by Bright, relating to the rights of South Carolinians under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. A strike-and-replace amendment to the bill was offered, to address actions by Congress relating to health care and bailouts. Democrats continued their filibuster.
QUOTES
Statement by Sens. McConnell, Billy O’Dell, Larry Martin, Thomas Alexander, and Hugh Leatherman in regard to the vote to adjourn on Thursday.
Today, the opponents of the Sovereignty Resolution, S. 424, who had been engaging in extended debate to block passage offered to conclude the debate on Tuesday if the Senate would adjourn. Those of us who wanted to pass the Resolution did not have the cloture votes to conclude the debate today and vote up or down. Therefore, the offer by the opponents was reasonable and made good common sense. There was no need to sit here today in a filibuster and then be back in a filibuster on Tuesday when we could conclude the matter on Tuesday. To vote against adjournment meant no deal and no end to the debate. A vote by supporters of the Resolution with the opponents today to adjourn assures an end to the filibuster.
This was explained to the other supporters of the Resolution who chose instead to oppose adjournment. That vote, in our opinion, was supposed to apparently make them appear more determined than some of us to pass the Resolution; but, in actuality, their votes, if they prevailed, would have left the Resolution to die in extended debate.
= = =
On H. 4219, the resolution to censure
Harrison: Ladies and gentlemen, we have lived this nightmare for the past seven months.
= = =
As Harrell and the Charleston delegation stood at the podium on Thursday
Rep. Harry Cato: Mr. Speaker, if I knew how to turn you on, I would.
Laughter
Cato: Mr. Speaker, if I knew how to turn your microphone on, I would.
= = =
While speaking in opposition to the superintendent of education constitutional amendment.
McLeod: The Speaker wants to adjourn debate, and whatever the Speaker wants, I want.
The last round of prefiled bills came out on Tuesday, as the House came up with a solid number of new topics to address, and some that are duplicates of other bills prefiled in the House and Senate. Again, even though the Taxation Realignment Commission will be returning to the General Assembly in March to submit its report on tax reform, there are several bills to tweak South Carolina’s revenue system.
The first is from Rep. Tim Scott, which joins a few bills this term that address exceptions for soldiers on active duty.
H. 4230: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX ACT, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SERVICE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO PHASE IN THIS DEDUCTION OVER FOUR YEARS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1170, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT INCOME DEDUCTION, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS DEDUCTION TO THE MILITARY RETIREMENT DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY THIS ACT.
Rep. James Smith goes into a topic which is likely running large under the surface in this economy, which is people having trouble paying their taxes, whereupon they become subject to a lien. This bill would provide some protection for people who are involved in an installment program.
H. 4231: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-122, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAX LIENS FILED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LIEN, TAX LIEN PRIORITY, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, AND SUBROGATION OF RIGHTS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FROM FILING A TAX LIEN TO ENFORCE ANY TAX LIABILITY THE PAYMENT OF WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND WITH WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS FULLY COMPLIED.
We’ve been a little interested in how people with ambitions for higher office have been handling their legislation. It only stands to reason that the bills filed would be — more than usual — driven by political considerations. This one from Rep. Nikki Haley has one of those bumper-sticker names that takes a little longer to explain. It provides spending caps, and the necessary moves to accomplish that.
H. 4232: A BILL TO ENACT THE “SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT” BY AMENDING THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-415 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE LIMIT ON GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR A FISCAL YEAR IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE ESTIMATE AS OF FEBRUARY FIFTEENTH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011, INCREASED ANNUALLY AND CUMULATIVELY BY A PERCENTAGE DETERMINED BY POPULATION INCREASES AND INCREASES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIMITATION TO BE SUSPENDED FOR A FISCAL YEAR FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT UPON A DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL EMERGENCY BY THE GOVERNOR AND UPON A SPECIAL VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND DEFINE THIS SPECIAL VOTE, TO ESTABLISH THE SPENDING LIMIT RESERVE FUND TO WHICH ALL SURPLUS GENERAL FUND REVENUES MUST BE CREDITED AND TO PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUES IN THE FUND MUST BE REFUNDED TO TAXPAYERS BY MEANS OF TEMPORARY TAX CUTS; BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-75 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE ANNUAL STATE BUDGET TO EMPLOY A ZERO-BASED BUDGET PROCESS IN BOTH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED STATE BUDGET AND IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE BUDGET; AND BY ADDING SECTION 2-7-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE MOST RECENT ITERATION OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL TO BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S WEBSITE AT LEAST THREE STATEWIDE LEGISLATIVE DAYS BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE DAY THE FINAL VOTE IS TAKEN ON THE BILL.
Hooray, beer! Rep. Jim Harrison is seeking to change the definition of beer for purposes of the licensing tax. There has already been a change for sales and consumption, so this makes the definitions the same.
H. 4233: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-1010, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE BEER AND WINE LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO CONFORM THE DEFINITION OF “BEER” FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LICENSE TAX TO THE REVISED DEFINITION FOR “BEER” PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE REGULATION OF BEER AND WINE SALES AND CONSUMPTION.
It’s no surprise that college has become more necessary and more expensive as the years go on. As such, a college education has slipped further out of the grasp of kids who don’t exactly come from wealthy families. Rep. Anton Gunn is putting forward legislation to increase the amount of refundable income tax credits for four-year and two-year college tuition.
H. 4249: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3385, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REFUNDABLE STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX CREDITS FOR TUITION PAYMENTS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT FOR TUITION TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS TO ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT FOR TUITION TO TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS TO SIX HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS.
The House ad-hoc subcommittee on impeachment did what was expected — voted down the resolution for the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford. There was a thought that it would get some Democratic support, or another Republican beside chief sponsor Rep. Greg Delleney, but the vote went 6-1 against. It seems to us that Democrats would like Sanford to kick around in the General Assembly and in next year’s elections, and that the other Republicans weren’t pissed off enough to throw the bastard out.
The panel did add more charges, and accepted stipulations from the Governor’s counsel that basically admitted everything that went down in June. But, perhaps lost in the mix is that all charges offered by the State Ethics Commission are still valid, and can be acted upon, even though the subcommittee gave an unfavorable report on the impeachment resolution.
The last session of the subcommittee went fairly quickly into the declarative speeches. Delleney started off with a little more information, discussing news stories from the summer, and the explanations for how they were voting was led off by Rep. Jim Harrison, who presided as chair. What follows are the relevant excerpts.
Rep. Jim Harrison
One thing is for certain: impeachment is not akin to recall. We cannot impeach for hypocrisy. We can’t impeach for arrogance. We can’t impeach an office holder for his lack of leadership skills. We cannot impeach a public official because the public has lost confidence in his ability to lead. The question for us is simple: has the Governor’s conduct, as we’ve heard, breached the constitutional standard?
Rep. Greg Delleney
There’s virtually no precedent for impeachment of a governor in South Carolina. Because, we do have a unique, one-of-a-kind standard that has never been used. The Governor’s lawyers in their memorandum point out correctly that no South Carolina governor has ever been impeached. They point out that only 16 governors have been impeached since the founding of this nation. But of those 16 governors who were impeached, only eight were removed. But, what they don’t tell us is how many governors, when faced with scandal, have the decency to resign. Like most recently, with Gov. Spitzer in New York. What they don’t tell us is how many governors have been recalled prior to the expiration of their term, like most recently, Gray Davis in California.
[...]
What did he do? in June of ’09 he came back, he confessed, and he wrote a check. It was an admission to a personal trip at state expense. And [Sanford's attorneys] want to say it was a mere coincidence. That’s insulting to intelligence, just as “hiking on the Appalachian Trail” was insulting intelligence of the people of South Carolina.
That standard of serious crimes, or serious misconduct, of course it is a high standard on purpose. The whole area of serious misconduct is, on its face, a very purposeful ambiguous term. And, I think it’s a term that gives this committee, or certainly gives the General Assembly, the leeway to set whatever that standard may be. To apply that standard on a case-by-case basis.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a grave proceeding in which we are involved. This subcommittee is meeting to consider House bill 4168, introduced by Rep. Delleney, Rep. Mike Pitts, Rep. [Keith] Kelly and Rep. [Gary] Simrill. It reads, “To provide that pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the governor of South Carolina, the Hon. Marshall C. Sanford Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.” The constitutional provision provides the House of Representatives, alone, will have the power of impeachment, of serious crimes, or serious misconduct in office. Officials elected on a statewide basis, state judges, and other statewide offices as may be designated by law. The first parameter is serious crimes — that is not germane or relevant to the mission of this impeachment panel, because there has been no showing of serious crimes. The issue before us is one of serious misconduct, which is at the heart of the deliberations we are involved in. If serious misconduct is involved, and it rises to the level of impeachment, that is a very, very grave matter. If simple misconduct is involved, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would also like to add, in general, that the process for impeachment proceedings is almost, I should say is, is almost as important as the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. I would like to compliment, and thank, Chairman Harrison for the manner in which he has presided, and the manner in which he has guided the deliberations of this special impeachment committee. In my opinion, you have performed in an outstanding manner, and I for one, on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina, want to thank you for your style and achievements. We also heard earlier about Article IV, Section 11, which more or less says, “The lieutenant should have full authority to act in an emergency, in the case of disability of the governor, and in the event of the temporary absence of the governor from the state.” Now, sometimes we say things, which had a little likeness to a very, very grave situation. And, I’d like to simply say, that our governor is blessed with poor judgment. I regret to inform you of that, but we all know it. So, we consider, what is serious misconduct, what is a simple misconduct. We’ve discussed at length five aircraft trips on the state aircraft, five strictly personal, or strictly political, uses of the state aircraft. There is no doubt about the exercise of poor judgment which was involved in those five flights. I wish he hadn’t done it. I would only say that the guilt associated with them clearly does not rise to an impeachable level, and therefore do not constitute a serious misconduct. I should say those five are not serious misconduct. In the year 2008, we had the use of taxpayers’ funds to pay for airline tickets and accommodations for Gov. Sanford and a Department of Commerce staffer, from Cordoba, Argentina, to Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Governor conducted a series of official meetings with high-level people — the ambassador, the governor, the mayor of Buenos Aires, and that is also true that he wrote six thank-you notes to cover himself. But, the validity of the trip leaves much to be desired. And, it appears to be a personal agenda, of which were fully covered by appearances and thank-you notes. For the most part, the 2008 trip to Buenos Aires was a ruse for the conduct of personal activities that bore no relation to his official duties as governor. We now come to the issue of the adventure to Argentina in June of 2009. The issue here is there were three days when he was incommunicado. He was not in touch with representatives of the Governor’s Office for three days, namely Friday, June 19, Saturday, June 20 and Sunday, June 21. It’s also true that the Governor contacted his office on Monday, June 22. But, what happened in that weekend? Well, I can tell you. It was a very bland weekend. All eyes in our state, on our governor and where he was. He was kind of like a bride at a wedding. Or a corpse, at a funeral. All eyes on the Governor, and who could tell us where he was? And nobody was talking. He was the center of attention, and once again, I say that poor judgment was exercised in a rank and obvious fashion. So, my conclusion is, that while I am discontent about the conduct and behavior of our governor, in my mind it clearly does not constitute serious misconduct. Therefore, the issues I have discussed do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I would share the view of Mr. Weeks, it is a necessity that we keep the bar high for impeaching elected officials in our state because we have a duty to respect the wishes of those persons who are elected by the citizens of our state. I remember Gov. [John] West well, I remember a little bit about the West Committee. But, I would certainly like to thank former Gov. West — at that time, when he was chairman of that committee, he was lieutenant governor — and the members of the West Committee for setting forth a standard for this committee to consider, which would not allow us to conduct ourselves in an inappropriate manner. Because, as I said at the outset, the process for an impeachment proceeding is equally as important the outcome of the impeachment proceeding. When this House resolution, 4168, is ready for a vote, I intend to vote against it.
Basic civics teaches us that our checks-and-balances system hinges upon co-equal branches of government. And, the very process of impeachment that we are about today, is the infringement of the legislative branch sitting in judgment of the executive branch. I think the Founding Fathers also got it right, as well as the West Commission, when they put together a standard that is high for the impeachment of a duly-elected official. That standard being, serious crimes, serious misconduct.
While it could be made fun of, much like the Tebow tears, Horne’s obvious care for the governance of our state should be lauded. Many people, of which we include ourselves, are deeply cynical of politics and government. We give Rep. Horne some well-deserved propers.
I have spent hours reading thousands of pages of documents, listening to the arguments of counsel, reviewing witness affidavits, and analyzing the South Carolina Constitution and the laws of this state. I wanted the other members of this impeachment subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to have been appointed to undertake this historic and monumental task. Considering the impeachment of South Carolina’s 115th governor, Marshall C. Sanford Jr., I take this task very seriously and I have given this situation the utmost thoughtful and prayerful consideration.
[...]
The Governor’s conduct was not that of a true statesman, or even a gentleman for that matter. My job on this committee is not to sit here in moral judgment of the Governor, which rests solely with his Creator. His fall from grace is indeed tragic, and as a wife and a mother, I feel great sympathy for Mrs. Sanford and their four children.
It became abundantly clear during the evidentiary — when we were receiving the information with respect to that [2008 Argentina] trip, that it was nothing but a ruse. It was nothing but a way to use his power with the Office of Governor to get to this area of the country, for a personal purpose. Any effort to engage in efforts on behalf of the state was clearly one to hide that fact. That, in and of itself, is a clear abuse of power.
There you have it. Most members of the committee thought Sanford acted like a college sophomore on Spring Break, but didn’t think it rose to an impeachable standard. Here’s a surprise, Harrison’s prefiled bill to censure Sanford subsequently passed unanimously. Maybe it’s just our cynicism again, but it looks like that old General Assembly shell game was in effect — the decision was made way before the legislators appeared in public. Sanford should get a worse punishment than a disapproving slap with no real repercussions, but that’s where we’re at right now. Hopefully, he’ll just lose his family, be disgraced and never show his head in politics again.
After the vote, there was the postgame commentary.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
First of all, I would like to thank each member of the subcommittee for taking time away from their family and job during this busy holiday season to meet and investigate this matter. With the regular legislative session beginning next month, it is important that we fully investigate and properly address this issue in a timely manner so that we can begin the session working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most.
The subcommittee has held four hearings, reviewed all the information from the State Ethics Commission’s investigative report, taken testimony, made follow-up inquiries and debated the issues. They have conducted a thorough investigation into any possible serious crimes or serious misconduct committed by our state’s highest elected official.
I agree with the majority opinion reached by the subcommittee. The threshold for removal from office is a very high standard, and from the evidence made available to them, it does not appear that the Governor’s actions have met that threshold for removal from office. While his actions were clearly revealed to be irresponsible, misguided and hypocritical, the subcommittee found that they did not reach the constitutional definition of serious crimes or serious misconduct necessary to remove the Governor from office.
I also agree with the subcommittee’s decision to favorably pass a censure resolution today. The Governor’s actions brought great shame upon himself, his office, our state government and our citizens. This entire situation – the multiple investigations, court cases and media barrage – could have been easily avoided if the Governor had acted in the best interest of our state and resigned from office, as I and a majority of lawmakers urged him to do months ago. Instead, the Governor insisted on remaining in office despite the embarrassment and distraction he has brought to our state. A legislative decree condemning the Governor’s irresponsible actions is absolutely warranted.
Whether the Governor’s actions require punishment by the State Ethics Commission or criminal prosecution in a court of law is not a determination that can be made by this legislative body. The South Carolina Constitution only gives the Legislature prosecutorial authority over matters related to the removal from office, and that is where the scope of this investigation begins and ends for the House.
The proper procedure needs to be followed for this investigation to be completed and some level of closure brought to this matter. For that to happen, the full Judiciary Committee needs to meet, consider all the facts, debate the issues and rule on the subcommittee’s recommendation. After this process is complete, the General Assembly can turn its full attention to addressing the major issues of the approaching legislative session.
S.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler
Gov. Sanford certainly deserved the stinging rebuke he got from the House subcommittee. But far more important than his trip to Argentina is that neither he nor the Republicans in the House and Senate seem able to do anything to move this state forward. South Carolinians have long since given up on Sanford’s failed governorship; the best we can hope for is that he won’t cause our state any more embarrassment in the remaining months of his term.
Sanford
In light of the ad-hoc committee wrapping up its work today, I would like to make several points. One, I’d like to thank the committee for its work, and for their deliberate and measured approach throughout the process.
Two, we agree with the committee’s dismissal of 32 of the 37 ethics allegations. From the beginning I acknowledged my moral failing, and I apologized repeatedly. But in the same breath I said, as real as that was, what has been suggested with regard to supposedly not watching out for the taxpayer was just not correct; and that if there had been any oversight, it was minor and technical in nature. We are confident that the remaining five allegations will be dismissed just as the 32 were, because we have consistently tried to be true to the taxpayer. This has not changed, and it will not change.
Three, I want to thank the people of this state for their kindness and grace. I was encouraged repeatedly in traveling across the state over the last several months by countless people telling me to “hang in there,” and “finish strong.” The people of South Carolina have given me great strength in this adversity I’ve created for myself, and I want to again thank them for it. [ed. note: Because cheating on your wife should mean you deserve sympathy. Asshole.]
It’s my intention to finish strong focusing on the economic challenges facing our state — just as we’ve seen with Boeing’s record-setting announcement a month ago, with Crane Company announcing 1,000 new jobs in Barnwell County a couple of weeks ago, or with Red Ventures, where I was earlier today, announcing 1,000 jobs in Lancaster County. I’ll also be focused on real opportunities for reform on the legislative front in making South Carolina more competitive in the global competition for jobs, investment and way of life. We’d ask that people from all corners of the state make their voices heard on this front.
Maybe it’s the mind’s inevitable draw to the salacious, from the sybarites to the Ned Flanders clones. But the ad-hoc House impeachment panel is going down Lovers’ Lane. It threw out 28 charges suggested by the State Ethics Commission, but on Monday began nailing additional charges to what will be considered for impeachment. And it goes back to that illicit nookie in Buenos Aires.
State Rep. Greg Delleney this morning said Gov. Mark Sanford arranged a 2008 economic development trip to Argentina so Sanford could meet with his mistress.
“It’s obvious that this was a personal trip and state business was just thrown in as a cover,” said Delleney, R-Chester, a member of the House subcommittee considering an impeachment resolution against Sanford.
Well, obviously. But, making that one flight — and frankly, unprovable allegations that Sanford took the trip just to get laid by a woman not his wife — is probably going to kill the impeachment effort. Committee chairman Jim Harrison and Rep. Walt McLeod tended to agree with Delleney, but our political bookie still says the odds are that neither men will vote to recommend impeachment to the full House Judiciary Committee.
But, sex will dominate the headlines and the thinking. Screwing around on your wife doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even if the guy is seen as even more of a creep. A few grand on the state dime, which was refunded? The charges look worse, but this looks essentially like the impeachment process against former President Bill Clinton.
House Republicans had been pissed off for years because they kept getting owned by Clinton (after he passed the learning curve in ’93-’94). Faced with the fact that he lied about getting a hummer and diddling an intern with a cigar, he was suddenly up for trial on “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was a revenge play, pure and simple. Plus, it gave U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham the stage to become a national political figure.
And what happened was a total political fuck-up on the part of the House GOP. It got truly absurd when the House went through two Speakers in a week because Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston resigned because, horror of horrors, they cheated on their wives. The end? The impeachment battle was good for Clinton, good for Democrats in general but horrible for former Vice President Al Gore. The only people who got taken to task were congressional Republicans and Gore.
This is a big deal, as far as political intelligence. People have a low tolerance for constitution-based revenge when there are so many other pressing concerns. If the House panel does recommend impeaching Sanford, the chamber better move damn fast, or there will be fallout. The longer it seems like it, Sanford just looks like a very bad governor. Unfortunately, that’s not impeachable, either.
Hey, kids! Did you remember that Dec. 1 was another one of those prefiling days for the House? Well, it can be excused if you forgot, considering the thrilling back-and-forth between Gov. Mark Sanford‘s high-priced attorneys and the ad-hoc House impeachment committee that morning. Actually, speaking of impeachment….
Rep. Jim Harrison, chairman of the committee, filed a resolution taking the lesser path, censuring the man with a love of Latin women with a penchant for Austrian economic theory. Like the impeachment resolution submitted by Rep. Greg Delleney, it uses some military terminology.
H. 4219: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CENSURE MARK C. SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR DERELICTION IN HIS DUTIES OF OFFICE AS GOVERNOR AND FOR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT THAT HAS BROUGHT DISHONOR TO HIMSELF, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO ITS CITIZENS.
On another note, the annual tax-free holiday on firearms in South Carolina brings a lot of yuks from the peanut gallery, and for good reason. A gun is not a necessity. Food is a necessity — how about eliminating sales tax on groceries, permanently? Eh, no, it’s important to make sure that sportsmen and those of other ideas (home security, building a militia in Oconee County) can buy a weapon of several hundred dollars and not pay sales tax. Really — if you have the cash to spring for a gun, you can chip in a few more bucks on sales tax without having to wait for a special time after Thanksgiving. However, Reps. Mike Pitts and Brian White want to make sure you can still get that tax-free gun.
H. 4220: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO REENACT THE “SECOND AMENDMENT RECOGNITION ACT” EXEMPTING FIREARMS SOLD ON THE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING OF EVERY YEAR.
A lot of states and municipalities have laws against scalping. As in, it’s illegal to buy a ticket to an event — usually sports or a concert — and resell it. Some have relaxed that to say you can sell your ticket, but it has to be at face value. And if you’ve walked around Williams-Brice Stadium on game day, you know that nobody is enforcing scalping laws. Rep. Bakari Sellers is attempting to throw out the law altogether.
H. 4223: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY REPEALING SECTIONS 16-17-710 AND 39-5-36 BOTH RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AND PRICE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESALE OF TICKETS TO EVENTS.
Finally, a bill that is likely to go nowhere. Sure, there are tons of bills that get referred to committee every year and never see the light of day, but if you have legislation that’s likely to play well among the base of the minority party (in this case, Democrats), forget about it. Rep. John King is putting in a hate crimes bill. South Carolina is a national leader in hate crimes, according to a recent study (what a surprise), but considering the conservative opinion is that every crime is a hate crime, this bill is DOA.
H. 4224: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 18 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16 SO AS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER WITH THE INTENT TO ASSAULT, INTIMIDATE, OR THREATEN A PERSON BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, RELIGION, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Today, the ad-hoc House committee on the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford had its first meeting to discuss the resolution put forward by Rep. Greg Delleney and set the plan for which the committee will discuss the issue and formulate a report.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell led off the proceedings by saying, “Removal from office is a very serious issue, and it is something that neither the Judiciary Committee nor the House takes lightly. The Committee members will give full consideration to all the facts in this case and will make an informed recommendation that reflects our state’s Constitution.
The amount of information we have to consider in this case is massive. I’m pleased and encouraged by the members’ willingness to conduct their work deliberatively so that we can properly address this issue and move our state forward. When we start the new Legislative session in January, we need to be fully prepared to begin working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most. Putting our citizens back to work needs to be our primary focus.”
From there, the talk was limited to the impeachment resolution, as the members had only just received the 1,000-plus word full report from the State Ethics Commission regarding misuse of state aircraft, improper seating upgrades on commercial aircraft and misuse of campaign funds. Rep. James Smith, in this light, made a motion, which was passed, to open up the SEC allegations to the investigative purview of the committee.
Beyond that, the main bone of contention was the position of Sanford as the commander-in-chief of, according to the S.C. Constitution, the military forces of the state. Delleney’s statement kicked things off, using military-style language.
“The Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety, in order to affect his absence from the state,” he said. “And, that conduct alone constitutes a dereliction of duty. He left his post, he left his state, he left his country without notifying anyone in authority. He was, in effect, AWOL.”
Rep. Walt McLeod, who looks to be against the resolution, said, “It’s a little shrill for a civilian to hear the comments made. As far as I know, I, at this time, nor the Governor, are members of a military organization. And, to speak about dereliction of duty, absent without leave, abandoning one’s post, are terms that are ordinarily reserved for those who are in uniform, and who are not civilian citizens of our state and nation.”
However, Smith, well-known for his service in Afghanistan, backed up the language, remarking that the words used were analogous to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“The commander-in-chief, I believe, should not be judged at a lesser standard than the soldiers and the airmen with whom he commands,” he said. “And, I think the analogy that was provided by Rep. Delleney is an appropriate one. We’re not trying him according to the UCMJ, this is not a trial. This is an impeachment process pursuant to the Constitution and the standard that we set is going to be an important one.”
Ultimately, nothing was settled on that matter, as of yet. It’s more expected that the committee won’t make a decision on what to do on any number of matters until the end of its meetings. Chairman Jim Harrison laid out a general idea of what is up ahead.
“It is my hope that we can complete our work, for the full Judiciary Committee to take up our report prior to Christmas,” he said. “This would enable full House debate on the issue, if it rises to that level, as soon in the legislative session as possible.”
There are three more meetings in the offing, set for the first week of December, each at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. They’re slotted for Dec. 1, Dec. 3 and Dec. 7. At the Dec. 3 meeting, the members will consider Sanford’s alleged violations of ethics law as it pertains to his air travel.
