We figured there was at least some taxpayer money behind the recent media blitzkrieg being waged by S.C. Treasurer Converse Chellis, and sure enough we found what appears to the first published expense.
Dated January 22 of this year, it showed up on Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom’s new transparency website – which is one heckuva tool for tracking down where our tax dollars are going.
The expense? $6,475 “earmarked” to WIS, LLC for “photographic and audiovisual services.”
Here’s the receipt:
Let’s be clear, WIS, LLC is not the local TV station, although it is affiliated with WIS-TV 10′s parent company, Raycom.
We know this because the company’s paperwork with the S.C. Secretary of State’s office (click here) was filed by Raycom’s Vice President and General Counsel, Rebbeca S. Bryan.
Anyway, ever since Chellis started plastering the state’s airwaves with his incredibly pasty self, we’ve been waiting to see how long it would take before some of the costs filtered back to the public.
And granted, $6,475 isn’t a lot of money, but it’s the principle that counts.
No taxpayer dollars should ever go toward putting a politician on TV.
“Period. End of story,” as our dad used to say.
At least that’s our view … tell us what you think in the poll/comments section below.
Loading ...
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) March 16, 2009 at 6:01 am
Either news is slow today, or someone is being extremely petty.
Scolding the SC Treasurer for advertising to fellow Sandlappers about a 529 College Savings Plan? Really? For as much as you mock and rave about the excessive costs of higher education in this state, you have the audacity to tell someone that he can not advertise a program that actually BENEFITS taxpayers who are trying to find ways to pay for higher ed?
While you are splitting hairs over WIS, LLC vs. WIS-TV, might it be a new LLC that replaced Take 10 Productions?
The folks at the SC Supreme Court were right … you missed your calling … go write some fiction, as it is not too far from the bulk of what you write here.
- SSHM
By Fableguy March 16, 2009 at 6:31 am
There are a lot more media expenses for Chellis. Both radio and tv. Just look through more of that transparency site.
Tax dollars and the tax supported staff that oversaw the “work” should have other things to do, rather than play politics.
By Randall March 16, 2009 at 7:53 am
Stupid,
All government activity “benefits taxpayers”. Just ask every government agency or elected official! Every one of them will tell you their programs help the poor or children, or seniors, or the sick…
That’s the point. There is no end to the public money that ELECTED OFFICALS will spend on their reelection. Hell, it is hard enough to unseat our elected officials as it is…and you favor them spending TAX DOLLARS to splash their mugs all over the TV? Could not an actor or staffer done what Chellis did? Were their not better ways to do this?
I am not condemning Chellis particularly, he is just the latest to participate in this shameful practice. But goodness, Stupid, don’t we have better ways to spend our tax dollars? The taxpayer’s money SHOULD NOT BE SPENT BY ELECTED OFFICALS TO RELECT THEMSELVES.
By Todd March 16, 2009 at 8:24 am
SSHM: The South Carolina Supreme Court should know something about writing fiction. Have you read the 2008 ABA team’s report on the condition of the judicial discipline system and the attorney discipline system? Talk about a work of fiction. Don’t dare expell the excuse that the SCSC didn’t help write those works of literary art.
By Laurin Manning March 16, 2009 at 8:40 am
Having constituents statewide means communicating with them, and sometimes the best way to do that is on television. (Maybe “constituents” isn’t the best word to use with respect to the treasurer’s position, but he is a statewide elected official… or, rather, the office of treasurer is elected statewide…) I’m not sure why you are suggesting that there’s something improper about the use of tax dollars for a public official to communicate with people who elected him concerning a state program. State dollars are used for this all the time. This is a program that could save taxpayers money, and the guy is the treasurer.
One public official I’ve seen on TV promoting state programs far more is Lt. Governor Bauer with the Office on Aging. I don’t have a problem with that. Lots of old people watch a lot of TV.
Do we expect officials to be prudent when using tax dollars for such purposes? Yes. Is there a political motivation with these things? Usually. Is it improper or, even, as you seem to suggest … illegal? No.
By Crush March 16, 2009 at 8:51 am
Will, I enjoy your stuff and you do raise some eyebrows from time to time, but this is complete garbage. I aint much of a Chellis fan either but this, to me, is not newsworthy in the least.
By Bill March 16, 2009 at 1:15 pm
There is a LAW that says constitutional officers cannot use public funds for these purposes UNLESS given written approval (with unanimous consent) from the Budget and Control Board. The Governor and the General Assembly is exempted…but the rest are prohibited.
Laurin, you are a lawyer…are you not supposed to know these thing?
By medstudent March 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/717556.html
Your speculations aren’t entirely accurate.
By Jesse Sewell April 8, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Principles people, principles. Does it benefit Eckstrom to have his smiling face on TV as a politician?
Yes.
Is it absolutely necessary that he present this program on television, informing SC residents personally?
No.
Should taxpayer dollars be used to further establish the name, face and identity of a politician in the minds of voters?
No, Absolutely not, Never, ever should this be done. The rest of you babbling about newsworthy and garbage and so on are just making excuses. I realize for many of you there is nothing better than bellying up to the public trough. However in this case enough is enough. I don’t care if its $5 or $5 million, this should never happen.