During the campaign in 2001, Sanford the candidate was critical of James Hodges, the governor, for appointing many of his campaign contributors to public office.
An analysis of appointees by The State newspaper shows Sanford followed suit in his first six months in office.
The appointment system in any government may be of spoils, but Sanford was particularly critical of Hodges' efforts. Yet, Sanford has named nearly twice as many people to office as Hodges did in his first six months.
Former Gov. Hodges named 36 election donors to posts during his first six months. That's about 25 percent of the appointments he made during the period. Collectively, the donors contributed about $62,000 to the campaign.
According to The State's analysis, Sanford named 81 donors to office, about half of the 167 appointments he made during the period. Collectively, the appointees, their families and the companies they control donated $360,000 to the campaign.
Hodges, a Democrat, wasn't the first governor to name political allies to office. Sanford, a Republican, won't be the last governor of any party to do so.
Both governors faced difficult jobs when they entered office. Sanford had no experience in state government, having served six years in Congress. In Columbia his job is to set a legislative agenda and try to implement the government reforms he thinks necessary to move South Carolina into the 21st century.
Some may say Sanford is either naive or speaking like a true politician, but even Hodges admits that a governor wants people around who are of like mind so the administration can move forward.
Some may call him a hypocrite, but a man who walks into a S.C. Ports Authority meeting and tells the agency it runs a wasteful organization deserves credit for trying to effect change. He was honest.
Now the thing that Sanford, and future governors, must acknowledge -- upfront -- is that appointees did contribute but specify the reason they got the job. It may only prove what everyone knows about appointment to public jobs, but everyone will know. In the end, it could make the appointees more accountable, although we'd like to think that a governor would dismiss an ineffective appointee.