Aspecial interest group known for playing hardball politics has been hoist with its own petard. South Carolinians for Responsible Government, a pro-school choice group, has been told by a state Ethics Commission official that it must disclose how it's funded and where it spends that money, according to news reports.

The group is refusing to do so -- not a very "responsible" attitude on its part. The group can best bolster its sagging credibility by being as open as possible about its finances and activities. The least it should do is comply with the state Ethics Commission official's request.

Critics say the group may be bankrolling or steering out-of-state money to about a dozen Republican primary candidates. Those candidates are attempting to unseat GOP incumbents who refused to toe a strict line on school choice, critics say.

The irony is that at least some of the incumbents, such as Adam Taylor of Laurens and Greenville counties, support at least some measure of school choice. But they may not support the specific school choice plan advocated by South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

Advertisement

House Speaker Bobby Harrell last month held a press conference with a dozen GOP legislators to criticize the "out-of-state special interest groups" involved in the June 13 Republican primary. The groups have "misleading names and they want you to think that they represent South Carolina's values," said Harrell. "The reality is that these organizations come from places like New York and Washington, D.C. The people of South Carolina should decide who their representatives are, not out-of-state special interest groups."

Harrell didn't name any specific group but one of the targeted incumbents cited South Carolinians for Responsible Government as the backer of his opponent. State Rep. Bill Cotty, R-Richland, said the group recently ran radio ads opposing him.

South Carolinians for Responsible Government claims it has plenty of supporters right here in South Carolina. The best way to prove that assertion would be for the group to do what the Ethics Commission has asked. According to Cathy L. Hazelwood, general counsel to the Ethics Commission, state law requires an organization that spends more than $500 to influence the outcome of a political campaign within 45 days of the election to detail how it gets and spends its money.

It's uncertain whether the Ethics Commission will fine the group or let it off the hook. But the group could take the high road and practice the responsibility it preaches by disclosing its donor lists and activities.

The group claims to demand high standards of politicians. Why not demand the highest ethical standards of itself as well?