Lawmakers Get “F” On Transparency
Without question, the biggest issue in South Carolina in the weeks and months leading up to the recently-concluded 2009 legislative session was “government transparency.”
In fact, it quickly turned into a movement, as citizens across the state demanded change and rallied behind reforms (and reformers) that sought to let the sunlight in on one of the most secretive legislative bodies in the entire nation.
Initiated by the S.C. Policy Council and championed by reformers like Reps. Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine, the “transparency movement” eventually attained such a crescendo that lawmakers felt compelled to take action.
Or at least they felt compelled to pretend they were taking action.
Rather than passing true transparency legislation, both the S.C. House of Representatives and State Senate passed a pair of hollow insider “rules changes.”
In other words, they did just enough to make it look as if they had changed their secretive ways – even as they maintained their exclusive control over which votes the public would see and which votes would remain cloaked in anonymity.
Transparency? Not hardly.
As we noted at the time (here and here), neither chamber passed true “transparency” – and now a new report from the organization that got the ball rolling on the issue (and has been monitoring its progress ever since) proves that point conclusively.
According to a new report from the S.C. Policy Council, South Carolina lawmakers voted on the record just 25% of the time during the 2009 legislative session – with the State Senate voting on the record a pathetic 15.6% of the time.
That means that 74.9 percent of votes held by the General Assembly – and 84.4% of votes in the S.C. Senate – were taken anonymously, with no record of how individual lawmakers voted.
“This is why South Carolina needs substantive, permanent transparency reform,” Policy Council President Ashley Landess said. “It should never be up to legislative leaders to decide which votes are public votes.”
Last year, the S.C. House of Representatives said that its rule change would “bring more transparency to the operation of state government and to make it easier for citizens to see how their elected officials voted on all bills and amendments.”
Similarly, the State Senate claimed that its rule change would “give taxpayers a clear picture of how their elected officials are voting and how their money is being spent.”
Obviously, neither of those statements ended up being accurate, which is sadly par for the course when it comes to the barrage of empty rhetoric that’s spewed year-in, year-out by South Carolina’s “Republican” legislative leaders.
“Like politicians do with a lot of things they just checked something off for appeasement and for show,” Rep. Nathan Ballentine told FITS. “They stuck real transparency in committee and wouldn’t let it out.”
Ballentine is referring to the “Spending Accountability Act of 2009,” a piece of legislation sponsored by Nikki Haley and a bipartisan coalition of more than forty lawmakers.
In addition to bottling up Haley’s bill, House Speaker Bobby Harrell also vindictively demoted both Reps. Haley and Ballentine for their advocacy on the issue – petty moves that Gov. Mark Sanford later referred to as “cowardly.”
Obviously, Harrell hasn’t learned his lesson.
Nor have any of our so-called “Republican” leaders in Columbia.
In fact, in addition to hiding three-quarters of their votes from the public view, we learned this session that the select few votes lawmakers put on the record can’t be trusted.
“As long as politicians are deciding which votes the public gets to see, the process will always be secretive and undemocratic,” Landess said. “The public will never get a complete picture of how their money is being spent until full transparency is a part of permanent state law.”
Absolutely.
That’s the level of “transparency” the public demanded, and we’re not going to stop until we get it.
WEB EXTRAS
Comments
By Get Ready on May 30th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Cue Bobby’s boys in 3…2….1…
By Um,no on May 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
A blogger gets undisclosed paid incentives to write posts benefiting clients. And you question others’ commitment to transparency. Hilarious.
By fitsnews on May 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“Um,no” … you’re right on time!
And obviously you’ve got a “whole bunch of nothing” to say about the substance of this post.
-FITS
By SumterStreetBoyz on May 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Bobby, Peeler, and Private McConnell are a disgrace to the Republican party. The Dems must be laughing … who needs “power” with these RINO clowns running the show.
We can only hope this trio will have a primary challenge next June. Seriously . . . it would be soooo easy to pick these guys off.
By Joe Bobby on May 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
All this talk about transparency but the same people that advocated this pushed and got secret ballots passed for union votes….hmmm…pot meet kettle
By Mike on May 30th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Come on Sic…I know you took a logic or rhetoric course in school, right? Why would “Um, no” bother to debate the issue at hand when he can throw red herrings all day?
By fitsnews on May 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Joe MORON-
We are talking about PUBLIC officials passing PUBLIC laws and spending PUBLIC dollars. That, by definition, is PUBLIC business. Not only do we pay for what they spend, we pay these idiots salaries and benefits while they spend it.
A private citizen at a private company deciding on union representation? Yeah … that’s not even close.
So in other words, kindly take your pot, your kettle and pour yourself a nice cup of STFU.
-FITS
By For real on May 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
FITS,
I think you miss “Joe Bobby’s” point. They are passing law that requires, not optional, secrecy in the workplace, so they are spending our dollars to have that debate and pass a law that it seems a company is quite capable of imposing themselves. And unions, well for your information FITS can apply to governments as well (i.e. California Teachers Union)so before telling someone to STFU, maybe you should do a little homework yourself instead of spouting off as usual with no facts, rhyme, or reason….much like the Policy Council that has ZERO, repeat, ZERO influence anymore. Keep trying though.
By Ron on May 30th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Thanks Will for a great editorial report. It’s unfortunate that the RINO morons will for the most part go unchallenged in the GOP primaries. In addition due to SC not requiring registration by party, they can invite their dem friends to “cross the isle” and diminish the integrity of our local GOP primaries when and if they’re challenged. The SCGOP convention has voted at least 3 times that i know of advocating “registration by party”. Are these lawmaker clowns listening? Hell no!
Apathetic voters are responsible for the socialistic nightmare that we now have in the white house and congress, and unfortunately our SC Voters don’t appear to be much different. I have no clue what it will take to turn this mess around. If Obama and renegate rinos like Lindsey Graham aren’t a wake up call, then when will the awakening ever come? What will it take, Will?
By SumterStreetBoyz on May 30th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
That’s it fellas. Shift the conversation to union voting and away from transperancy.
Constituents deserve to know how their representatives vote. When Bobby and his merry band of RINOs are faced with primary challengers armed with their RINO votes they will have nowhere to hide.
I wonder how many RINOs will lose their primary but pull a Specter and run as a Dem in the General? No doubt they would be more comfortable coming out of the closet.
By Stupid is on May 30th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Seems interesting that 10 house members and 5 senators could ask for a roll call on every matter yet the did not. Did Davis and Haley request them on every issue. I doubt it.
By BIN News Editorial Staff on May 31st, 2009 at 12:15 am
Do you know when we will begin to have real transparency? When the Policy Scam Council releases a complete list of financial supporters. And when sic(k) willie provides the world with a list of his paying clients.
sic(k) willie’s list can be printed in 20 point Times Roman on the back of a postage stamp. And we all know where the Policy Scam money comes from.
While we’re at it, let’s get a list of contributors to the astroturd group that calls itself the Voice for Voucher Scams. Sorry, typo – that should have been: “astroturf group.” The letters “f” and “d” sometimes stick.
We all know the real Voice for Voucher Scams: Howie the Carpetbugger.
And we all know what this “transparency” thing is all about.
Just another political scam. Think we are wrong? Just watch.
BIN News
Flair and Balanced
By Frank on May 31st, 2009 at 8:48 am
Let’s don’t forget about one of the biggest RINO Jakie Knotts. He has been playing both sides ever since his fat ass got in the House! Ask Snake the Jake how he feels about transparency and when he gives you that B.S. answer, then ask him why he has not went on the record to show how he voted for on every issue.
By Gillon on May 31st, 2009 at 9:21 am
No one can argue that more transparency in the SC General Assembly would not be a good thing and a much-needed reform. People should know how their elected representatives stand on the major issues before them. The bigger problem is that in order to know how your Senator or House member voted, you have to know who your Senator or House member is. Most South Carolinians do not. Try an experiment. Ask ten average people on the street who their House member or Senator is. I guarantee you that no more than three can tell you who either one is and maybe one in ten can tell you both. Only the most committed vote in the primaries, and the rest just look at the “R” or the “D” by the names in November and vote accordingly. Maybe, in the poet Pope’s words, “Ignorance is bliss,” but it’s sure not healthy for the state.
By BIN News Editorial Staff on May 31st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Wonder if “Frank” has the nerve to meet “Snake the Jake” in a dark corner of the underground State House garage and call him “fat ass” to his face.
Our staff would would love to watch.
BTW, Frank.
Jake is before Snake only when you leave out the comma in your compound sentence.
And, “RINO” is just stupid rhetoric typically used by ultra right wing wackos who know their 15 minutes of fame are up. Like you.
But, if you insist on rhetoric, RINO should be plural, unless Jake is the only one you hate.
Finally, your use of “has not went” is almost as confusing as “how he voted for on every issue.”
sic(k) willie, where do you get these wackos?
We’d rather (gag) read Mandee’s cr@p than Frank’s.
BIN News Funding Editor
Flair and Balanced
By For real on May 31st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Jake Knotts represents his district well….and a primary with a runoff proved that. People want their elected officials to be like them and one of them….which most of them are. The average voter in Knotts district or Harrell’s district could give 2 sh&ts about transparency. It’s about taxes, education, infrastructure, and jobs.
The only people who really get caught up in transparency are people like FITS and the Policy Council…why? Because it gives them something to yap about and dissect and skirt the truth…for example: What if a member of the GA supports the bill that provides tax breaks for corporate investment, but an amendment in there also with a change the tax code he or she doesn’t think will benefit their district very much at all, maybe even adversely. So he or she votes against the bill. How will FITS or the Policy Council report it? They won’t care about the particulars, just the final vote….because of people like that, transparency voting so it can be nit picked would worry me too.
By Toyota Kawaski on June 1st, 2009 at 8:20 am
SC Policy Council HA HA HA HA what a bunch of smart growth douche bags
By Recovering Lobbyist on June 1st, 2009 at 9:19 am
Where is the credibility in this argument? I am hardly a RINO, in fact I like to think I am practical. Close to half of the “bills” on which the legislature votes are resolutions recognizing the Hair Implant Festival and declaring Monday as Boring Day. It would be nice if we looked at the recorded vote issue in the context of votes that really matter. Even though some resolutions have some bearing in law, couldn’t we just measure this issue on actual bills? You know, the ones that read “An Act to…”
By Fashizzle on June 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
The 75 percent figure excludes resolutions. If resolutions were included the percentage of votes on the record would be even lower.
By Richard on June 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
back to the topic at hand…those who don’t vote in favor of transparency or elect to debate it on the floor cleary are hiding something. Could this possibly be why many of you refer to those same persons against it as rhino’s? The message should be clear to those constituents of Harrell, McConnel, Cooper, Knotts, and Leatherman. They are only working for themselves and don’t care about the people. They only care about the people they can fool. There is NO leadership in the General Assembly. That’s why SC does not progress.
By marvin on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
For Real: as I understand the Policy Council’s position (though I could be misstating it so please don’t exactly quote me), they would oppose targeted corporate incentives in favor of across the board cuts, and not support any changes to the tax code that were specific to anyone’s district. I certainly would hope that’s the position the free market organization would take. As to your hypothetical bill, the whole thing sounds bad, but if all votes were recorded as they should be, the amendment votes would be separate.
Recovering, no one cares about a roll call on doc of the day. In fact, they shouldn’t be doing that crap in the first place. Waste of time and money.