FITSNews Exclusive – S.C. Senators Violate Ethics Law
HAWKINS, HUTTO AND RANKIN BLASTED BY STATE CHAMBER FOR THEIR ACTIONS
FITSNews – March 21, 2008 – It’s not like ignoring an obvious conflict of interest is anything new to sleazy S.C. Senators John Hawkins, Brad Hutto and Luke Rankin. Not only are these ambulance chasers violating their own ethical standards in the workers’ comp debate, they’re doing it in the payday lending issue, as well – participating in deliberations and casting votes that stand to make them millions of dollars.
Simply put, these three pigs at the personal injury lawyer trough wouldn’t know ethical behavior if it was performing fellatio on them, fellatio not unlike the political kind they routinely perform on the ambulance chaser lobby that’s padding their pocketbooks and forcing South Carolina businesses to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in skyrocketing workers’ comp premiums.
Of course what Hawkins, Hutto and Rankin generally aren’t accustomed to in their ongoing effort to abuse their positions of public trust is somebody (other than us) actually calling them out on it …
Fortunately, that happened this week after these three morally-compromised musketeers got caught red-handed violating state law (Section 8-13-700, to be precise) by participating in a Senate Judiciary Committee debate on the appointment of two new workers’ compensation commissioners.
Although Hawkins, Hutto and Rankin recused themselves from actually voting on the appointment of the two commissioners (thus acknowledging their conflict of interest), all three nonetheless injected themselves vigorously into the debate, which clearly violates a state statute barring them from participation in “any votes, deliberations, and other actions on the matter on which the potential conflict of interest exists.”
In fact, according to a “Competitiveness Update” circulated today by the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, Hawkins in particular “continuously attempted to intimidate current and future commissioners through his line of questioning.”
A spokesman for the Chamber and another lobbyist present at the hearing also confirmed to FITSNews that Hutto and Rankin similarly attempted to drive the debate at the hearing by asking leading and manipulative questions.
Of course, this sort of overtly unethical behavior is nothing new for these pocket-padding jokers.
Last year, all three acknowledged their conflict of interest by similarly recusing themselves from voting on a workers’ comp commissioner, only to turn around days later and vote on a workers’ comp reform bill. Later in the year, Hutto served on the Conference Committee charged with hammering out a final version of this bill.
In addition to their workers’ comp shenanigans, all three Senators are involved in a series of pending class action lawsuits filed against the payday lending industry. If successful, these lawsuits stand to make them each millionaires. Once again, however, all three blatantly ignored this conflict by voting and participating in Senate debate on a payday lending reform bill earlier this year.
Two State Representatives who are also involved in the class action lawsuit, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison and Subcommittee Chairman Murrell Smith, both cited this conflict of interest in formally recusing themselves from voting or participating in the House debate on the payday lending bill.
Comments
By Truth Seeker on March 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Wow!! When did you graduate from law school so that you could interpret the statute as clear? BTW, this is not a FITS exclusive as just about everything you say was put out in this week’s Chamber update, which is available online
http://www.scchamber.net/docs/Publications/CU_2008_03_20Web.pdf
So I am confused here by your comments. Is this to say that Sen. McConnell can’t vote or particpate on any Hunley issues or that Sen. Bryant can’t vote or participate on any medical issues (or the budget for that matter since it involves Medicaid $$ and his pharmacy accepts that) or that anything that is would affect in anyway the drug industry or maybe even a step further would be Senator Martin who participated heavily in the workers comp debate, yet works directly for Alice Mfg. who was signed on whole-heartedly with the Manufacturers Alliance and the Chamber of Commerce pushing Comp reform?
Bottom line is that there needs to be questioning of all the commissioners on all aspects and really who better to do it than those that know how the system operates itself whether that be a lawyer who either represents plaintiffs and/or defendants or…are we going to rely on ultra big business hacks like Sen’s Martin and Campbell to steer the debate simply because they are not lawyers, yet their companies will benefit from having their “boys” as commissioners. Is that the fair way to do it? Questioning should be wide open from all angles.
As much as we like Rep. Murrell Smith, isn’t his chairmanship of the criminal laws subcommittee a complete conflict of interest according to your interpretation- since he is a criminal defense lawyer? No, it means he is likely the MOST qualified person to deal with the issues.
Otis Rawl got called out for running his ever flapping mouth to a reporter and now he’s pissed. Get over it Otis and be glad that Boykin Rose didn’t bring you down too. And FITS, at least we know who one of your clients are now.
By anonymous on March 21st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
JUDGE Joe Anderson is PUZZLED by PROSECUTORS unwillingness to cite anyone Ravenel disclosed to authorities
Prosecutors argued to further reduce Ravenel’s sentence
“Judge Joe Anderson also said in a sentencing memorandum that he is puzzled by prosecutors unwillingness to cite anyone Ravenel disclosed to authorities who are investigating a Charleston cocaine conspiracyâ€.
“Though prosecutors regularly agree to sentence reductions for defendants who cooperate, court observers say it is unusual for them to join the defense in arguing for greater reductions than judges are inclined to imposeâ€.
In the judge’s seven-page Ravenel memo explaining his sentencing decisions, he wrote:
“Ravenel’s attorneys, and, surprisingly, the government attorneys contrary to their usual position, vigorously argued in favor of a greater downward departure based on information Ravenel has provided concerning ongoing drug investigations involving other individuals.â€
He wrote “… it is perplexing to the court that the government could not present a single name … to which Ravenel’s substantial assistance led.â€
http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/353036.html
By lowercase man on March 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
not a lot of wiggle room for the defendants.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on March 21st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
The “Boys From Charlotte” will have a “field day” with this slick slime from sic(k) willie. BTW, sic(k) willie claims 11-0, but we all know that’s not true. Has a conviction for CDV. At best, he’s 11-1. We’re patient. With his track record, more convictions are certain.
By G.L. on March 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
Your intelligence astounds me. A lawsuit and being tried for a crime are completely different things.
By Ron on March 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Truth seeker,
It does not take a law school graduate to recognize apparent corruption. Fits, do any of these guys have opposition in June? I’d like to write a check.
Thanks
By Elizabeth on March 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
My only comment: Duh … law makers are supposed to be honest?
By JLG on March 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Comment to truth seeker. Read the state constitution where it clearly spells out that no one in any of the three branches of government can execute the duties or have any involvement in either of the other two branhes of government. Lawyers are officers of the judiciary branch of government. The means the state constitution bars them by law from being in the legislative branch of government.
By Seriously JLG ? on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
JLG-
Does these mean that insurance agents, doctors, teachers, welders, biologists, economists, engineers…the list continues can’t serve, since those governing agencies (i.e. Dept of Insurance, Labor Licensing & Reg, Dept of Health…you get my drift) all fall under the Executive Branch?
I guess retirees and the unemployed shall only be allowed to be candidates and members of our General Assembly under your interpetation of the law? Also, since you seem so versed on constitutional law, I would suggest immediately filing suit for the good of the state to ask our high court to rule immediately on this overlooked bit of information for the past 114 years…you would be skirting your civic duties if not.
By Sick Of The Corruption on March 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Thank you for your report! SC Citizens have been blind sided by these three characters. But, you left out the biggest Rat in the pack: Glenn McConnell. He and Rankin have been working together to hand over South Carolina assets to ATT for years. Look at the nearly $100 million VoIP Telecom contract just awarded in an open bid to another SC Telecom company. It saves SC millions a year. ATT was not even near the top low bidders. So, ATT through McConnell’s Rat Pack, fired the State CIO who awarded the contract, and is in the process of recalling the Bid. And, that’s just one of the rip-offs these characters have pulled in the past 12 months. Get a rope!
By Silence Dogood on March 25th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
JLG, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deeply from the fountain or not at all.
I think yours may seriously take the cake for stupidest comment I have read this year so far. What is your take on the constitutional situation of lawyers like the A.G. of the state and others who actually work for…gasp…the executive branch? Huge quandry, I know.
Adminstrative law judges who are judicial officers but work for the Excutive?
The Lt. Gov. who presides over and can even vote in the legislature, but is an executive officer?
Don’t even get me started on the budget and control board.
My main point is to think before you type, or at the very least consider what you do type.
By Elaine Cash on March 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I don’t know who to write about this problem. Something needs to be done about Mother that give birth to babies with drugs in their system. Now all the birth parent has to do is go through a 3 month program. Once through the program they get their children back. To me this is saying fine use your drugs, them go through the program and get your child back. Its to late for Little Gracie. My Daughter, Crystal, and her Husband, Chris, took in a 4 month old little girl named Gracie. Her Mother was Chris’s sister. They kept Gracie for 16 months, and she was returned to this stranger on Firday. If you can use drugs while pregnant them why not make them legal? I can’t stand drugs, alcohol and anything that can destroy a family. I’m raising 2 of my Grandson’s because my son died in Aug 2004, age 36, he abused drugs and alcohol. I just thank God he change his life before he died. The Mother of his children sold drugs to children, she had children sell drugs for her. The parents wouldn’t let their children testify in court. This woman was caught 3 different times, facing 12 to 15 years, walks awy with 1 year probation. She gave me custody of my Grandchildren because she wanted my car. So who do I need to write to get a law passed to protect the innocent children of drug user’s. Knowing its ok because you just go through a program. Am I the only person that feels this way? Please put a stop to drugs. Please help me! I know its to late for some children but lets not let it cost other children the ability to learn because their parent used drugs.
Thank you,
Elaine Cash
Trackbacks