S.C. Lawmakers Hire Attorneys To Defend Their Proposed Pay Raises In Court

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Adding insult to injury for Palmetto State taxpayers, so-called “Republican” leaders in the South Carolina General Assembly are spending public money on private lawyers to defend the constitutionally dubious pay raises they approved for themselves last month.

On Tuesday (June 10, 2025), S.C. Senate president Thomas Alexander and S.C. House speaker Murrell Smith filed motions to intervene in a case brought earlier this week against the state by senator Wes Climer and retiree Carol Herring.

Climer and Herring – who are represented by former senator (and veteran Palmetto State attorney) Dick Harpootlian – want the S.C. supreme court to prevent the state treasurer’s office from disbursing money tied to a controversial pay raise lawmakers tucked away for themselves in the $41 billion state budget that takes effect on July 1, 2025.

Neither Alexander nor Smith was named in Climer’s motion – which asked the court to determine whether the pay raises were constitutional. By inserting themselves into the debate, these two legislative leaders are putting taxpayers on the hook for their legal defense.

***

Alexander’s motion to intervene (.pdf) listed attorneys Sara S. Parrish and Tracey C. Green of the Burr & Forman law firm as his legal counsel – in addition to a trio of full-time S.C. Senate attorneys. Meanwhile, Smith’s motion to intervene (.pdf) listed attorneys Mark C. Moore and Andrew A. Mathias of the Maynard Nexsen firm as his legal counsel on the matter.

None of those lawyers come cheap, which raises an important question…

How much taxpayer money are “Republican” lawmakers going to wind up spending in defense of their ill-conceived decision to gift themselves millions of taxpayer dollars in the first place?

News of these raises – and Climer’s bid to block them – were both exclusively reported by FITSNews. As we noted in our original coverage, the overwhelming majority of South Carolina’s “Republican” supermajority voted last month to give each member of the General Assembly an additional $25,500 between now and next November (unless they opted to send the money back). All told, the raises would cost taxpayers $4.3 million between now and the end of the 2025-2026 legislative session.

The raises were subsequently rubber-stamped by “Republican” governor Henry McMaster, who declined to veto the budget language authorizing them.

While many believe lawmakers deserve to receive more money, the state’s constitution holds that “no General Assembly shall have the power to increase the per diem of its own members.”  In other words, if lawmakers wanted to vote in favor of legislative pay raises – they needed to wait until after they had stood for reelection first.

“Politicians shouldn’t be able to vote themselves more money and see it show up in their bank accounts immediately,” Climer wrote on X. “That’s unconstitutional. The people should decide who gets a raise at the ballot box.”

***

Politicians shouldn’t be able to vote themselves more money and see it show up in their bank accounts immediately. That’s unconstitutional. The people should decide who gets a raise at the ballot box

Original Video : @fitsnews pic.twitter.com/yNnOdDjxI5

— Wes Climer (@WesClimer) June 10, 2025

***

S.C. senator Mike Reichenbach of Florence was one of a handful of lawmakers who joined Climer in voting against the budget which included the raises.

“I voted against the legislator pay raise,” Reichenbach wrote on X. “I voted against the budget that included the pay raise. And I have already formally declined the pay increase. I am in public service to serve you!”

State representative April Cromer – a leader of the S.C. Freedom Caucus – also rejected the pay raise.

“At a time when families across our state are struggling with higher prices, rising property taxes, insurance hikes, and grocery bills, I cannot in good conscience accept a pay increase, especially one falsely labeled as an ‘expense,’ while also giving me a tax break and political leverage to hand out grants or favors,” Cromer wrote on Facebook.

“Last year, when I asked for your trust and support to serve in the South Carolina House, I knew the compensation included $10,400 for work while in Columbia and $12,000 for in-district service,” Cromer added. “That was enough then, and it’s enough now. This session, a proviso quietly included in the state budget raises legislative pay by $18,000, an 80% increase beginning this July. I believe this raises serious constitutional, ethical, and practical concerns.”

Cromer noted in her post that additional compensation for members could be part of a broader conversation regarding legislative service – but said such considerations should be taken up in a manner consistent with the constitution.

***

***

“To be clear: I believe we do need to examine how to make public service accessible to more citizens,” she wrote. “But like most things in government, money shouldn’t be the first or only answer. Let’s talk about reforms; like shorter sessions, flexible meeting days, and scheduling that allows working people to serve. If compensation is part of that conversation, it should apply only to future legislators, not the ones who voted for it. We should not be voting ourselves raises midterm. At the very least, let the people decide, and any change should take effect after the next election.”

FITSNews has made it clear our media outlet has no objection whatsoever to lawmakers being paid more money – so long as they accompany any funding increases with stringent anti-corruption legislation. In fact, eight years ago we proposed an inflation-adjusted $80,000 annual salary for lawmakers – although this pay hike would have been accompanied by “the most draconian anti-corruption measures South Carolina state government has ever seen.”

In other words, lawmakers would have received a larger base salary – enabling more non-attorneys to serve – but their ability to profit from their elected offices would have been eliminated. Included within this draconian ban would have been constitutional restrictions on legislative meddling in other branches of government – including doing away with the current legislatively controlled judicial selection racket.

“Sadly, lawmakers don’t want to be held accountable for their corrupt ‘self-service,'” I noted last month. “In fact, they want us to pay them more to keep ripping us off.“

Now they also want us to pay for the well-heeled lawyers defending their decision to get paid more to keep ripping us off…

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.