The type of political cash cow at the heart of Washington's current ethics scandal isn't limited to the nation's Capitol.

Often fueled by donations from individuals and business groups seeking access or to pass, kill or amend legislation, the so-called "leadership political action committees" have been adopted by top officials in state capitals, including South Carolina's.

The funds also allow key lawmakers to accept more money than donation limits allow, although none can be spent directly for re-election purposes, but raising their political profiles.

Now they're under assault, in both Washington and Columbia.

Advertisement

To John Crangle, executive director of the state chapter of Common Cause, "it's a shakedown, a way people in leadership positions can put pressure on special interests to donate money, (primarily) lobbyists' principals, the big corporations."

South Carolina's four leadership PACs are the products of House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston; Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper, R-Piedmont; Labor, Commerce and Industry Chairman Harry Cato, R-Travelers Rest; and Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia.

But Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, who lost a run for the speaker's gavel to Harrell, says he shut his down, and Harrison plans to phase out his own. Under attackRetiring Rep. Dan Tripp, R-Mauldin, said he's having a bill drafted to outlaw them in South Carolina. So is Sen. Tommy Moore of Clearwater, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's indictment in Texas on charges of campaign finance irregularities involved money funneled into and out of his leadership PAC. Both parties are preparing reform legislation.

U.S. Rep. Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C., has filed legislation to require leadership PACs to list the names of the officials behind them.

Jones' bill would require federal leadership PACs, often with high-sounding patriotic names, to list the representative or senator behind it, according to his Web site.

While anyone can readily go to the Federal Election Commission Web site and check out who is donating to members and how the money is being spent, unless they know the name of a member's PAC, they won't find it, he said.

It's the same way in Columbia. Even officials at the state Ethics Commission, where finance reports are filed, can't locate a given member's PAC without the committee's name. Not just moneyHarrell, who has the most cash-rich leadership PAC, said his Palmetto Leadership Council is an organization, not just a mailing list for fund-raising.

"It's business people from all over the state who are trying to elect people to office who will focus on South Carolina's economy and long-term benefits. They keep up with legislators and talk to them constantly about these issues," he said.

Saying it's a different type of PAC, Harrell noted the PAC has sponsored full membership meetings featuring major national and international speakers.

"The council is not just about raising money, it's about the connection between businesspeople all over the state and legislators who are willing to make tough votes because it's in South Carolina's long-term best interests," Harrell said.

Washington's Center for Responsive Politics said recently that politicians use leadership PACs "to help promote their own ambitions, gaining clout among colleagues that can translate into support for future leadership contests or bids for higher office." The nonpartisan center analyzes the influence of money on politics.

In 2005, the state Senate voted to abolish such PACs, but the provision was dropped in a compromise with the House. They'll try again this year, Moore said, because they allow politicians to do indirectly what they're banned from doing directly.

The PACs, at least four of which are now actively operating in Columbia, can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly for their sponsors. Collectively, since 2001, they've taken in more than $1.2 million, according to state Ethics Commission reports.

They aren't called "leadership PACs" for nothing. The innocu- ously named organizations are run by federal and state legislative leaders, doling out money to rank-and-file members who critics say are expected to vote to keep them in power and support their bills. Spending limitedThe name stems from their origin, as creations of leaders.

Such PACs can't spend the money on their principal's campaign -- that's banned by law -- but they can hand it out to their political allies, within the state's statutory limit of $1,000 per election.

Crangle said the PACs are "a way of evading the contribution limit" because politicians who can't accept more than $1,000 from a single donor to their election campaigns can accept up to $3,500 for their PACs.

Tripp said he is planning legislation to close "the leadership PAC loophole that has been created surreptitiously, meticulously and craftily, and it's not going to be done away with by just a blanket law outlawing leadership PACs."

He said such PACs are not defined in the statutes, and without a legal definition, "you turn around and try to outlaw it, you create more loopholes."

Reminded that PAC money cannot be used for the members' campaigns, Tripp said, ruefully, "Right," adding, "I'm not going to get into that discussion."

Tripp was the only House Republican who failed to receive a $1,000 check from Harrell's PAC. He was also the only Republican who voted against Harrell's bid for speaker.

Harrell defended the PAC against criticism that it's a way to buy access to legislators.

"I understand how people would feel that way, but I ask them to look at my record and the way that I've tried to conduct myself. My record will show that what I'm personally about is to improve South Carolina in the long term, and this organization helps by getting business people to buy into that vision and participate." No 'sour grapes'That wasn't his motivation, Tripp said. "I'm not running again. Why do I want $1,000 from any PAC? This isn't sour grapes."

Crangle said the PACs give "extra leverage to some members of the General Assembly to influence others."

Former House Speaker David Wilkins of Greenville, now U.S. ambassador to Canada, started one several years ago.

Wilkins shut down his Speaker's Politically Active Citizens Committee in July, when he became ambassador.

In 2004, before his ambassa- dorial nomination came up, Wilkins' PAC took in $257,866, according to the report filed with the Ethics Commission.

From 2001 through its termination, Wilkins' PAC took in $498,366.

Cato said of his new PAC, "It's a useful tool, in terms of me being able to help my colleagues who I -- almost on a daily basis -- have to go to for votes."

Cooper said his PAC allows him to help those members who have a hard time raising campaign funds. "It's a good way for me to help. I was one of them until recently."

Harrison is abandoning his but not because he's soured on the concept.

"If you get too many of them, it squeezes those folks who want to contribute to the various PACs and might feel an obligation." Numbers diminishSmith said he's dropping his PAC because, with the speaker's succession settled for years to come, "there's no reason for me to have one."

Harrell, who previously chaired the powerful Ways and Means Committee, started his own committee in 2002, raising $100,000 in 2002 and $288,375 in 2004.

Harrell's Palmetto Leadership Council generated $295,550 in 2005 and spent $184,695, including $1,000 checks to 57 members. It had $239,666 in the bank on Dec. 31, according to the report.

For the year, the PAC reported that 80 of its 93 donors gave the legal maximum of $3,500.

Cooper created the South Carolina Leadership PAC in August. It raised $27,451 by the end of the year, most of it from business political action committees in $3,500 chunks.

The Carolina Commerce Fund was created in October by Cato and raised $28,500 in less than three months, according to Ethics Commission filings.

Smith raised $49,276 since 2002, but only $1,000 last year, and his PAC's account was down to $421 on Dec. 31, reports showed.