U.S. Rep Bob Inglis has been around politics for a while. Indeed, he was even the Republican nominee against former U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, in Hollings’ last run for the seat. Inglis lost, took some time off, came back and again won the SC-04 office he held previously. That makes the following even more unusual. From a story in The Herald-Journal, it appeared that his campaign violated state campaign finance ethics laws.

According to paper, a staffer from the campaign told the SHJ that another candidate for the GOP nomination for the seat, Solicitor Trey Gowdy, broke ethics laws. Thing is, mentioning such a thing, whether or not it is true, before a ruling has been handed down, is not OK.

State law says that all investigations, inquiries, hearings and documents are confidential until a final resolution is reached. The “willful release” of such information is a misdemeanor, carrying a penalty of up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Pretty cut-and-dry, right? But, the Inglis campaign maintains that because it submitted a Federal complaint as well, the state complaint is just a part of it and not a violation. Au contraire, monsieur.

“Since every state violation was included in the federal complaint, there’s nothing we did wrong,” [Inglis spokesman Price] Atkinson said via e-mail.

But that statement in itself is a potential violation, because it acknowledges the state complaint and indirectly reveals its contents. When asked about that possibility, Atkinson said: “The media made the connection, not us. We’ve discussed only the substance of the [Federal] complaint.”

Oh, come on. If you’re going to file an ethics complaint and you intend on talking to the media about it, it might be a good idea to check up on what the laws and regulations are regarding such speech, unless you want it coming back to bite you on the ass. Really — we’re not in a high-level position in a campaign, and even we’ve known for years that you can’t talk about such an investigation.

Honestly, you’d think that Inglis would hire people who are slightly more intelligent about the rules of the game. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t look that way.

Thursday, the ad-hoc impeachment committee went over the allegations provided by the State Ethics Commission. There was a lot of back-and-forth between the legislators and Gov. Mark Sanford‘s high-priced attorneys. Then it came. The big move. The committee dismissed 28 of the charges.

Yep, there were 37 counts of wrong-doing, and now only nine survive.

But the House impeachment panel took just 31 minutes Thursday to decide 28 of those charges did not meet the “serious” crimes or misconduct standard the state Constitution requires for impeachment.

The committee said Tuesday it likely would ignore half of nine other ethics charges relating to Sanford’s use of state-owned aircraft for personal or political travel.

Lawmakers still could impeach Sanford for serious misconduct because he left the state without informing other officials where he was and misled his staff.

Sanford also still faces the possibility of up to $74,000 in fines from those 37 charges when an S.C. State Ethics Commission panel debates his case in January.

Really, this is simply more good news for Democrats. The longer the GOP is saddled with dealing with the Sanford mess, the worse for the party.

Sometimes, journalists have to write bullshit process stories when they already know the outcome. We’d be surprised if Associated Press writer Jim Davenport didn’t break out in a massive yawn while penning, “AG not close to decision on SC gov ethics case.” The collective reaction, no doubt, is, “No shit.”

Right now, Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster has to give his little tap dance about how he’s seriously considering the State Ethics Commission findings of 37 violations to determine whether there is a criminal case against Gov. Mark Sanford. Henry Mac has to look deliberative, contemplative — dare we say, competent. But if you don’t think gubernatorial politics is already wrapped around this issue, you haven’t been paying attention.

This song-and-dance will go on for a little while, then McMaster will say that he can’t give an opinion as to civil matters or the machinations in the House, but that there aren’t any violations of criminal law. Done. It doesn’t help his campaign any to launch a criminal prosecution of the Governor. That’s the mindset that will be driving the decision. A lot of law is about interpretation, and Sanford will be ruled to be in the clear, naturally.

The State Ethics Commission report on Gov. Mark Sanford’s indiscretions regarding use of state money and campaign dollars was released today, but we’re not sure if this thing is really worth a damn or not. A few of these charges, here or there, might lead to a fine or a stern rebuke from the General Assembly. But, when they come across, one after one, it looks like the members of the House may have a case. According to the report, there will be a hearing at SEC offices at an undisclosed date to deal with the findings.

USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN
Section 8-13-700(A), S.C. Code ann., 1976, as amended
37 counts

Upgrade on flight

• Graz, Austria to Frankfurt, Germany (2005)
• Frankfurt, Germany to Charlotte, N.C. (2005)
• Chicago, Ill. To Tokyo, Japan (2005)
• Tokyo, Japan to Shanghai, China (2005)
• Beijing, China to Chicago, Ill. (2005)
• Charlotte, N.C. to London, U.K. (2006)
• London, U.K. to Charlotte, N.C. (2006)
• Charlotte, N.C. to Munich, Germany (2007)
• Munich, Germany to Paris, France (2007)
• Munich, Germany to Charlotte, N.C. (2007)
• Washington, D.C. to Beijing, China (2007)
• Beijing, China to Washington, D.C. (2007)
• Columbia, S.C. to Atlanta, Ga. (2008)
• Atlanta, Ga. to Sao Paulo, Brazil (2008)
• Cordoba, Brazil to Buenos Aires, Argentina (2008)
• Buenos Aires, Argentina to Atlanta, Ga. (2008)
• Upgrade on flight from Charlotte, N.C. to New York, N.Y. (2009)
• Upgrade on flight from New York, N.Y. to Warsaw, Poland (2009)

Improper use of state plane

• Spartanburg, S.C. to Clemson/Oconee County for a county party dinner (2005)
• Columbia, S.C. to North Myrtle Beach, S.C., transporting a Governor’s Office staffer, then North Myrtle Beach, S.C. to Columbia, S.C. for staffer and himself to receive a haircut (2006)
• Columbia, S.C. to Mt. Pleasant, S.C. for a book signing (2006)
• Mt. Pleasant, S.C. to Aiken, S.C. for a birthday party for a contributor (2006)
• Lewisburg, W.Va. to Brunswick, Ga. for family for a personal weekend (2006)
• North Myrtle Beach, S.C. to Columbia, S.C. for son’s sporting event (2007)
• Columbia, S.C. to Greenville S.C. for House Republican Caucus reception (2007)
• Columbia, S.C. to Greenwood, S.C. to Charleston, S.C. for Reason Weekend dinner (2008)
• Columbia, S.C. to Myrtle Beach, S.C. for family to attend “soft” opening of Hard Rock Park (2008)

Campaign funds for personal use

• Receiving $40 for activity not related to the campaign (2006)
• Receiving $329.40 for expenses from attending the Alfalfa Club Dinner in Washington, D.C. (2007)
• Giving $610.30 to staffer Marisa Crawford to attend the Republican Governors Association meeting (2007)
• Receiving $181.23 for direct marketing, telephone, Internet and/or cable services at the Governor’s Mansion (2008)
• Receiving $280.16 for direct marketing, telephone, Internet and/or cable services at the Governor’s Mansion (2008)
• Receiving $297.89 for direct marketing, telephone, Internet and/or cable services at the Governor’s Mansion (2008)
• Receiving $864.90 for expenses from the Republican Governors Association meeting and a hunting trip in Ireland (2008)
• Receiving $79.95 for direct marketing (2009)
• Receiving $96.95 for direct marketing and a presidential inauguration ticket (2009)
• Receiving $159.90 for direct marketing (2009)

S.C. Ethics Commission report

The ruling coming out of the State Ethics Commission on Wednesday has as much use as a fish needs a bicycle. Somebody please tell us what the hell point is it when The State‘s lede on the story is about the most stupid goddamn thing we’ve read from the paper yet.

A state ethics panel has found evidence Gov. Mark Sanford may have broken state law, charging him with “several” undisclosed violations after an investigation into his travel and campaign spending.

State Ethics Commission director Herbert Hayden on Wednesday would not provide details of the charges, nor would he clarify whether the violations were ethical or criminal.

Everyone in South Carolina should roll on down to the SEC with pitchforks and torches and light the place up. After all, what point does it serve, beyond an information clearinghouse? It has no teeth, no raison d’être beyond gathering and disseminating information. Want to hold an elected official’s feet to the fire? You better get good evidence and sue their happy ass in court, because you can’t trust the SEC to do anything.

Really — they deliberated about six or seven hours to say Sanford may have done something wrong, but they can’t say what or to what level those wrongdoings rise? And, the quote from the director of the agency is priceless.

“They found probable cause exists on several allegations,” SEC director Herbert Hayden said in The State. “[The commissioners] wanted me to point out that a finding of probable cause is not a finding of guilt. It is only one phase in the process.”

What.the.fuck. We’ve seen bought-off mafia juries return more specific verdicts than this one. So, what happens now? Nothing different from the way it was on Tuesday. If there’s enough interest in the House for impeachment, it will happen. If not, it won’t. But this missive coming out of the most pointless watchdog agency in the country is the very definition of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”