Log in • Subscribe

FITSNews Exclusive - The Real Shady Money

By fitsnews • on May 16, 2008

SOUTH CAROLINA’S SENATE GOP CAUCUS IS SPREADING THE LOVE … BUT ARE THEY DOING IT LEGALLY?

FITSNews - May 16, 2008 - For all the bitching and moaning done by so-called GOP consultants Warren Tompkins and Rod Shealy about the corrupting influence of money in Palmetto politics, it turns out South Carolina’s two poster boys for unethical conduct are helping direct hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money to specific State Senate incumbents.

Tompkins’ firm - which is basing its entire “pro-incumbent” campaign offensive this year on the criminalization of legal campaign contributions - has been retained by the S.C. Senate Republican Caucus to manage its soft money account, which could dump as much as half a million dollars into contested State Senate races.

In fact, the Caucus is already pouring soft money into several GOP primaries featuring vulnerable incumbents, including three mail pieces that went out last week on behalf of embattled Spartanburg Sen. Jim Ritchie and a TV ad that’s running this month for Sen. Catherine Ceips in Beaufort. Ritchie and Ceips have also been the beneficiaries of promotional websites paid for by the Senate Caucus.

In Ritchie’s case, it appears the three mailings are “technically legal” given the Senate Ethics Commission’s failure to define ”coordinated campaigning,” but in the case of the Ceips’ television ad, the line between a campaign organization and an independent, “non-coordinated” expense certainly appears to have been crossed.

According to documents obtained exclusively by FITSNews, nearly $2,000 worth of TV advertising was recently purchased on Ceips’ behalf by the GOP Senate Caucus from Time Warner Cable of Hilton Head.

Documents filed with Time Warner by the ad buyer, Jane Murray of Mount Pleasant, S.C., clearly list both “Ceips for Senate” and “SC Republican Senate Caucus” as her clients, but the official contact for the ads is Lisa Sox - who is currently employed by the Caucus.

Murray also purchased TV time for Ceips’ Caucus ad with two other cable providers, Hargray and Comcast, although those agreements make no mention of the Caucus at all.

When FITSNews contacted the ad buyer, Jane Murray, and asked her who her client was, she referred us not to the Caucus, but rather to Kelly Saddlemire, a full-time employee of political consultant Rod Shealy’s firm, which is running Ceips’ campaign.

“She told me to place the ads on (Ceips)’ behalf,” Murray told FITSNews, adding that she does not purchase ad time for the Caucus, just Sen. Ceips.

Sox confirmed to FITSNews that Saddlemire is neither a paid nor a contract employee of the Caucus, but she declined to discuss the financial details of the Caucus ad buys or what level of coordination was involved with Ceips’ campaign in producing, placing or paying for the ads.

Both Ceips and Ritchie have already received the maximum $5,000 in hard money contributions from the Senate GOP Caucus, which would mean that anything above that amount (i.e. television ads, mail pieces, websites, etc.) would have to be defined as an “in-kind” contribution … right?

Well, sort of … federal law clearly requires candidates to designate such expenses as “in-kind” contributions, but South Carolina law (surprise, surprise) is a veritable thicket of question marks on the subject, which is only exacerbated by the fact that the State Senate (wait for it … ) regulates itself on ethical matters … or at least pretends to do so.

For example, check out this ridiculous October 2007 letter from Senate Ethics Chairman Wes Hayes in response to an inquiry about coordination of soft money expenditures:

“I instructed my staff, working closely with the Deputy Clerk, and Judiciary Committee staff, to research and draft a Formal Advisory Opinion that would provide procedural guidance for applying this portion of the law related to campaign activities existing within the forty-five days before an election for State Senate. This proposed Opinion was submitted to the Senate Ethics Committee for review. After much discussion, a consensus was not obtained.”

Hold on … a consensus was not obtained? Isn’t it this Committee’s job to make the rules and enforce them? Oh wait, we forgot. We’re talking about Senators spending unlimited sums of soft money on their own races …

Anyway, Hayes makes matters worse by telling Senate candidates they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with all that soft money:

“It would be improper for me to offer an informal opinion about this matter when the Senate Ethics Committee was unable to establish a Formal Advisory Opinion on the matter … all participants must comply as they see this law to be relative to their situation.”

Wow. Wouldn’t it be nice if all laws were subject to compliance only insofar as we saw them ”to be relative” to our situation?

All of this, of course, is a tremendous joke.

By virtue of their elected offices, incumbent GOP Senators like Ritchie and Ceips are part of the Senate Republican Caucus, which means by definition their campaigns are “coordinating” with that group’s efforts.

Both Ritchie and Ceips are also frequent visitors to the Caucus office at 1323 Pendleton Street, which is conveniently located just a half-block from the State House.

Caucus staffers confirmed that Senator Ceips, in particular, uses the Pendleton Street office “all the time,” but denied that any improper campaign coordination took place there.

Because state officials haven’t addressed whether or not coordinated expenditures constitute in-kind contributions, most candidates or third-party committees in the past have been unwilling to run the risk of the State Ethics Commission following the lead of the Feds by treating them as such.

In fact, great pains are taken to avoid the appearance of coordination.

According to Caucus staffers, soft money is being “spread all over” this election cycle, but whether or not those expenditures are legal is an open question.

And based on the performance of the Senate Ethics Commission, don’t count on that question being answered anytime soon …

Related Entries

Comments

By Clarify on May 16th, 2008 at 6:17 am

1323 Pendleton Street? You mean the same address as the S.C. Policy Council and Tony Denny’s lobbying firm?

Did a certain Lexington political consultant tip you off to this, too?

By Rando on May 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am

Money is the name of the game,period. The politicians dont act on bills because they do not have enough time. They only work about 3 days a week and get lavish retirement benefits and do not have enough time. B/S South Carolina deserves everything we get from all the illegals flooding in here to way below average schools and high unemployment. The Governor has no real power and the Democrats still run the state because most of the so called Republicans are Republicans in name only.

By Chicken Hawk on May 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Great post. But, if you have the paperwork proving it, show it. Don’t be a little chicken shit and say you have proof like in the “Strom problem” story and not actually have it. Be a big man and post the documents you have that prove the law was broken. Since you can’t afford office space anymore and have to work out of your little apartment why don’t you run over to Kinko’s and scan them.

Seriously, if these guys are “breaking the law” show the proof and make big news.

By q. on May 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

let me try a little “main idea” reading here…

FITS’ preferred candidates are losing so badly on the campaign trail that they’re resorting to digging around for “ethics violations” that don’t really exist.

check me out, people. i summed up in 24 words what FITS spent a whole afternoon imagining!

~quintus

By Ron on May 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am

Quintus,

If you believe that SC government is free of corruption, then you are very stupid and probably an elected official or an agency employee. Therefore Quintus, you’re part of the problem. Onward Fits!!! Keep up the good work. By the way, where do we send contributions to FITS news!

By q. on May 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

ron, i am neither an elected official nor an agency employee, nor even a permanent resident of south carolina. your derogation is unwarranted and unfounded. my previous post does not state or imply that any government is or ever has been “free of corruption.” please learn to read before making any future posts on my blog.

~quintus