Something’s Stirring At La Socialista
STATE NEWSPAPER TO REPORT SUNDAY ON LATEST LEGISLATION TARGETING HOWARD RICH
FITSNews – February 22, 2008 – Legislation is about to be introduced in the S.C. General Assembly that would prohibit companies owned by the same individual from making separate contributions to political candidates in South Carolina, sources tell FITSNews. The proposed bill – much like this piece of legislation currently offered by State Sen. Hugh Leatherman – is reportedly aimed at reducing the influence of New York developer Howard Rich, a limited government advocate and school choice supporter who has financially backed numerous conservative candidates in South Carolina.
Sources also tell FITSNews that the bill will be the subject of a massive Sunday feature story by The State newspaper (a.k.a. La Socialista), with left-leaning opinion columnist John Monk behind the typewriter. Monk – whose “news columnist” title is unique among South Carolina journalists – is a hybrid opinion writer/ reporter who is perhaps best known for his ongoing war with Senate President Glenn McConnell over the Confederate flag and the H.L. Hunley submarine.
Coincidentally, the bill’s first public hearing will likely be in front of McConnell’s Senate Judiciary Committee, although a source in the State Senate told us this afternoon that the bill has yet to be officially filed.
In an effort to go straight to the horse’s mouth, FITSNews sent several e-mails to Rich this afternoon seeking comment on the proposed legislation and received no reply. We have also contacted Sen. McConnell’s office and are awaiting his thoughts on the proposed legislation.
One thing we know for certain is that McConnell WON’T be calling Monk back with his thoughts, as he cut the columnist off several years ago following one of his trademark hit pieces. McConnell said at the time that there was no use providing quotes to Monk because “he only writes fiction.”
Comments
By Harden Gervais on February 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Oh no! Obscenely wealthy people will have one more roadblock to prevent them from buying elections! I didn’t know “one man, one vote” was such a “socialist” ideal. Too bad the bill will be late for this cycle, as your friends in Zombie Nation try to buy a few more seats in the General Assembly.
By fitsnews on February 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Harden,
You were a lot funnier when you were writing BBQ and Politics. At least there we got some decent Photoshopping efforts and solid recommendations on where to get good eats.
Speaking of photoshopping, though, we hear your pa Rod Sr. laughed his ass off at our “Andre Bauer is My Co-Pilot” T-Shirt. We’ve always loved his sense of humor.
Anyway, please give your dad and brother our very best …
-FITSNews
By conservative independent on February 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
What responsible legislators are you talking about Ross … er, Hardin? The ones that have pissed away $1billion on festivals and junk? Or maybe the ones that do nothing but play insider games all day ripping off the public? Oh, i know. You must mean that bunch of socialist do-gooders who would put us all in the gulag if given half a chance. You know, your “friends”.
By Mr. Blackwell on February 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
John Monk is a joke of a “reporter.” I was taught in journalism school that unless you’re on the editorial page, your personal bias shouldn’t enter a story. He missed that course. Can’t wait for the entertainment on Sunday.
By serious inquiry on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Hey Folks,
Why have you not crusaded against every item that is not subject to the state procurement code? You sure pitched a bitch about the other B&C good old boy deals like the state’s insurance and Tompkin’s, et al.
By Helvidius on February 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
Obscenely rich people can have good ideas too. Challenge the content of the message, but don’t silence the messenger.
By Hmmmm.... on February 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Helvidius,
This wouldn’t silence the message. It would force the “obscenely rich people” to play by the same rules the average taxpayer has to play by. Until they found another way around the law, of course.
By A deT. on February 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hmmmm…
The rules ARE the same for everybody. The “obscenely rich” (what does that mean?) simply have more money to give than does the “average taxpayer. (Keep in mind, too, that the “average taxpayer” has a LOT more money to give than the “average citizen.”)
It sounds like you want is typical socialist claptrap: let’s all play at the lowest common denominator. And what that really means these days is “publicly funded campaigns,” which may well be the greatest threat to our democracy since, well, McCain-Feingold.
The reason this issue is getting traction is not public outcry such as that raised by Mr. Gervais. It is that the lawmakers have figured out that campaign finance limitations are nothing more than Incumbency Protection Acts. Every time they make it harder for opposing candidates to raise money, the power of the incumbency grows. Already today, with franking privileges, earned media opportunities, and other perks built into the system, the incumbency is almost insurmountable.
So, in the end, Mr. Gervais (and others) will get what they think they want — less money from Howard Rich and George Soros — but they won’t get what we all need: better lawmakers.
By Kyle on February 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
All I ask for is for every dime to be disclosed…then the public can make up their own minds.
The Internet makes disclosure immediate.
Honorable men and women have no problem with disclosing everything. Mark Sanford should step up, and beging the disclosure fest.
Leadership is what we need.
By Pete on February 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Kyle, we don’t do full disclosure down here. It’s the law because Queen Jean said so. Don’t believe it? Go ask her.
By Hmmmm... on February 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
A deT.,
You are right. The rules are the same. It’s the reality that is different. So tell me why you think a New Yorker should have more influence in a South Carolina election than a South Carolinian? And you assume that all this money is being pumped into opposition rather than incumbents. As for “obscenely rich,” you’ll have to ask Helvidius what that means. That’s who I was quoting.
By Hmmmm... on February 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
A deT.,
And why do you assume that someone will be a better lawmaker because they get thousands of dollars from an outside influence?
By Helvidius on February 24th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Hmmm, government rules for speech. Great idea.
By A. deT on February 24th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Kyle has hit the nail on the head: let these people take money, in any amount, from whomever and wherever they please. Just make them provide absolute and immediate disclosure. You want to take $1,000,000 from George Soros? Fine, just let the voters know about it.
As for Hmmmm..’s point about the rules being equal but reality being different …. that’s hardly a sound basis for policy, is it? It is government’s job to make sure the rules are the same, and evenly applied, not to spare you from the “realities” of having less money than somebody else. Again I say that at the end of that line of reasoning is government funded (and regulated) speech.
Hmmm does raise a good question question regarding the rights of “outsiders” to participate in our political process. Without agreeing, I wonder if he/she would favor no limits on contributions from the resident obscenely rich.
Finally, I don’t assume that money from outside elements makes a better lawmaker. I just trust that if we have a full and open discussion on the issues — which in this day and age takes money, and lots of it sometimes — eventually the system will improve. The campaign finance rules prevent the market for ideas from functioning properly.
I am shocked that some proponents of this new bill (Mr. Gervais et al.) have failed to question why the same legislators whom those pundits so regularly trash have suddenly “seen the light.” Is (insert name of lawmaker regularly accused of being incompetent here) really been moved to sudden enlightenment by the anti-Howard Rich blogosphere? Or is it more likely that they have figured out that this legislation will help them keep their jobs?
By Pete on February 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Actually, all that Yankee money is pretty good for the local economy. I say, keep it coming. New Politicians with new money is always good for us po’ aw shucks kinda folks.
By Tim on February 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
McCain-Feingold gave all the big backdoor campaign funding to the Left, with the rare exception of a few really rich GOP’ers, like T. Boone Pickens (a la Swiftboat Veterans). Look at all the millions raised in Hollywood by Hillary. Not to mention the $15,000-a-pop photo ops with Lindsey when Bush came down here a couple of months ago. This Leatherman bill sounds like a state-level McCain-Feingold—tiny by comparison in scope and size, but kind of on steroids (in the Orwellian hard-left kind of way).
It’s not about rich versus poor. It’s about 1 single rich man who deviated from the party line. Now his masters—and let’s be honest about it: the really really wealthy—are out to get him.
By Kyle on February 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I think if we start to examine the motives of all those involved the process will stall, and the aim of introducing sunlight into our politics will be lost.
Everyone should disclose. We should call them out by name…everyone in public life should tell who is paying them money, and how much.
Everyone.
By A deT. on February 24th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Exactly….and Leatherman’s bill doesn’t do that. It just outlaws “Leadership PACs,” and, of course, any political fund having anything to do with the Governor.
By Kyle on February 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
So why should the governor care?
An honorable man should disclose. He should and could set an example…then challenge the rest to do the same.
Trackbacks