FITSNews Exclusive - McMaster Shuts Down Complaints Against Rich
“PRO-PUBLIC EDUCATION” FORCES MUST NOW FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT
FITSNews - August 24, 2008 - We’re not sure why the Greenville News isn’t reporting on this itself, but a source at the paper has provided FITSNews with copies of a letter sent by Attorney General Henry McMaster to a local political activist last week that is bound to have far-reaching implications on the Palmetto State’s hottest political debate.
The letter, dated August 22, effectively shuts down the main avenue of institutional attack in the ongoing battle over parental choice - namely, donations by New York choice advocate Howie Rich. According to another source we spoke with, it could also pave the way for Rich to pursue legal action against those who seek to criminalize his contributions in the future.
“I conclude that (Rich’s) contributions meet all legal requirements of South Carolina law,” reads McMaster’s letter to Greenville League of Women Voters’ President Janet S. Welch, who had protested Rich’s donations to various South Carolina candidates in a formal complaint to the Attorney General’s office back in June.
“Every contribution was properly recorded and … none exceeded the applicable limits,” McMaster’s letter continues. “I conclude that further inquiry by this office is not warranted.”
Neither McMaster, Rich nor Welch could be immediately reached for comment, but Welch’s original letter accused Rich of “bypassing the laws of South Carolina” in an attempt to “destroy public education,” which is basically a regurgitation of the battle cry which “pro-public education” forces have been screaming from the rooftops in the Palmetto State for the better part of the last four years.
Status quo supporters like powerful State Sen. Hugh Leatherman have sought to change the law, but have met with little success due to the First Amendment protections afforded to political speech.
One legal source we showed the documents to said McMaster’s decision was “an expected, but important” victory for Rich, and that the real impact of the decision “could be felt further down the road.”
“Mr. Rich now has a legal hammer to use in the event a certain line is crossed by those individuals who are attacking him,” our legal source said. “The law says what he’s doing is legal, and now the individual responsible for enforcing the law says what he’s doing is legal. Without question, this makes it a lot riskier for people to try to criminalize his contributions to different candidates.”
Comments
By Silence Dogood on August 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Mr. Rich now has a legal hammer to use in the event a certain line is crossed by those individuals who are attacking him,” our legal source said. “The law says what he’s doing is legal, and now the individual responsible for enforcing the law says what he’s doing is legal. Without question, this makes it a lot riskier for people to try to criminalize his contributions to different candidates.”
This is ludicrious, what in the hell “legal hammer” does this give him. 1) Attonrey Generals opinions are just opinions and not legally binding on anyone. While it does give Rich Carte Blanche to thwart S.C. campaign election limitations presumably because he is out of state, it doesn’t mean that the law could not be change to also limit non-south carolinans from being limited by the same donations to S.C. candidates that S.C. citizens are already limited by.
2) What is the risk? to those who seek to change the law on campaign limitations?
3) I guess this effectively means that if you want to give more than $1000 in an election cycle to a state sens. or reps. or ver $3,500 to state wide candidates, it is effectively going to cost you an extra $150 dollars to do after the first max out donations, i.e. the cost of setting up a shell LLC or Corp. in another state. At least as long as Henry Mac is the A.G. and promises not to go after those who make a mockery of our campaign finance laws by doing so.
By Voter on August 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
~~I love him again.~~
Señor Rich,
Mi AG es su AG.
By Tiger on August 24th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Good for Henry Mac. He upheld the law.
By Rebel on August 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Down with Leatherman!!!!!!!!!
By Voter on August 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Off with his head. Friday is the feast day of St. John the Baptist. Good date?
By Voter on August 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
That’s No. 5 to No. 4. I know how these editors like to mix up the recipe on our comments…
By SCHotline on August 24th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
What is much missed in this debate is the tax payers dollars committed to maintaining the status quo. While friends have begged us not to comment on such matter we quite frankly find it “beyond our control”… ~dangerous liaisons
By Calhoun Fawls on August 24th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Rich used the law for his advantage. It might be legal but it ain’t right. McMaster made the politically smart move. He can cite the letter of the law and not piss Rich off.
Mystery money pays bloggers to post favorable posts, pays politicos to work for him, and scares the hell out of an Attorney General who wants to be Governor.
The mixed results will eventually make the man stop spending money here. What he is paying, about 5 grand a vote now? Wealthy people who made their own wealth don’t mess around with such losing investments for long.
Never before has so much money been given to people who have little talent and produced marginal results. Eventually, Rich will move on elsewhere, regardless the T and A his paid bloggers offer or the AG’s opinions.
It is simple economices, isn’t ladies and genttlemen? A smart man with money just will not keep paying people who only get mixed results.
If you want to find someone who has performed less than those in public edcuation, look to those the SCRG crowd paid to run their poltiical operations. Like the public school crowd they hate, they have mixed results at best.
By Toyota Kawaski on August 25th, 2008 at 7:17 am
We will use this against you in the Gov race Henry Mac.I think a job with Sen.McCains staff would be good for you.
By X on August 25th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Hotline, while you’re at it, why don’t you tell us why you’ve blacklisted some of the blogs that challenge your paymasters, such as Earl’s Blogland and Barbeque and Politics. We’ve noticed you don’t link any of their articles anymore. Or is that “beyond your control” too?
By baker on August 25th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Yeah, legal (in the view of the GOP attorney general) don’t make it cool.
By Gene E. Nowak on August 25th, 2008 at 8:23 am
If it was illegal there are numerous ambulance chasing lawyers that would have lined up to file a law suit against McMasters, if there was a ghost of a chance of overruling him in court. They probably would do it pro bono as it would be a leg up to the big time pork barrel trough of the education lobby.
By Silence Dogood on August 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Am I the only one who realizes that the ability to easily thwart S.C. campaign laws, while here done on the school voucher issue, is a problem that extends beyond just this single issue?
I realize why political consultants are excited about this. The more foolish millionaires and billionaires give to sub-par candidates the better in lines their coffer in helping consult them in sub-par efforts to obtain office.
However, under the bigger question of allowing the S.C. legislature to be sold to the highest bidder, be it a liberal issue, or a conservative issue, and envrionmental issue or what have you…it just seems there might actually be more at stake than allowing Henry Mac to kiss up to a potentially HUGE contributor?
By PalmPwnd on August 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
No doubt the press will continue to shop around for even more contrived arguments to justify their irrational hatred of Rich. I guess free speech and persuasive political speech is good and fun (and profitable) for left leaning newspaper editorialists but not for right leaning political philanthropists.
By Scott on August 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
One only wonders why the LMV was in a tizzy…. From everything I’ve read, seen and heard - all of this is legal and has been legal.
The AG simply examined the law and made his finding. It’s not like Rich is the only person that does this in SC races.
By Draven on August 25th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“It’s not like Rich is the only person that does this in SC races.”
Really? Can you show me anyone else who has done it?
By Earl Capps on August 25th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Fred Collins, Alan Schaefer and others. Social conservative Republicans used to vilify Jim Hodges, Harpo and company for that sort of funding, but when it suits their ends, it’s okey-dokey.
Funny how that works.
Trackbacks