Date Published: May 30, 2006   

Sanford vetoes bill allowing legislators' special interest groups

By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

The House easily fended off Gov. Mark Sanford's veto of a bill that lets legislators set up special interest caucuses, overriding it with a 105-3 vote Tuesday.

Sanford vetoed the bill late Monday night saying the caucuses could open the door to public corruption and would not be subject to reasonable oversight.

"This is a giant step backward" from the ethics reforms the state passed in the 1990s, Sanford said.

Those reforms came after state legislators were convicted of vote selling in Operation Lost Trust - the FBI's code name for an undercover investigation of vote buying that began in 1989.

"I think it very much muddies the waters of the current ethics reform that's been in place ever since" Lost Trust, Sanford said.

The legislation would allow two or more legislators to set up a caucus that could accept contributions from just about anyone except lobbyists or the people who employ them. It blocks the use of donations to influence elections. Those caucuses would have to file financial reports saying who gave money and how it was spent.

In his veto message, Sanford said he was reminded of a caucus set up before the ethics law change that "could and frequently did extort meals and entertainment from those seeking legislation. Some of those legislators even went on record saying that if those seeking legislation refused to entertain the legislators, then the bills they were advocating would be killed."

The vetoed legislation "establishes an environment for potential election abuses, and rolls back the anti-corruption reforms of the early 1990s," Sanford wrote.

Legislators backing the bill called it the "sportsmen's' caucus bill," saying it would allow lawmakers to promote their love of hunting and fishing.

But it is far more broad, Sanford noted. "How about a transportation caucus paid for by road contractors? Similarly, many members rightfully are focused on tourism, how about all-expense paid trips to Orlando or Las Vegas in the fall or winter - or Alaska and London in the summer?" he wrote.

While public interest is keen on fundraising scandals in Washington, Sanford said it was wrong to "open this floodgate that will be used by some worthy, and other not so worthy, interest groups."

That type of special interest money was at work earlier this year with the passage and ultimate veto override of a bill carving out special property rights for the state's billboard industry, Sanford said.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, noted Sanford's criticism is "coming from a man with $6 million-plus in his campaign account." Pitts, an avid hunter, said he doesn't want to be wined and dined by lobbyists.

Someday, he said, "I will invite (Sanford) down from his ivory tower to go hunt with me if he'd like."

Pitts said the legislation would not open the door to public corruption.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia, voted against overriding the veto.

"Clearly there will be temptation in the future for small groups of people to choose to unite simply for the purpose being wined and dined or taken on trips," Harrison said.

Pitts said the legislation doesn't increase the likelihood that will happen.

The legislation would have let the House and Senate clerks oversee special interest caucuses. But Sanford said the too-close relationship between legislators and the clerks they elect is bad policy. In Wisconsin, Sanford noted, "boards charged with supervising the legislative caucuses refused to provide documents relating to their review of the caucuses and, in fact, conducted meetings with legislative leaders behind closed doors."

House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, said the he trusts the clerks will properly monitor the caucuses.

Besides, Harrell said, "the governor can be invited to anything and there is no oversight."