Sanford is right to worry about a closed system but wrong to veto ethics change

Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed a bill that would limit the fines on ethics violations. He stated that he is concerned that lawmakers are creating "a closed, secretive system."

Sanford is right to be concerned. Lawmakers have pursued courses this year will lead to secrecy and backtracking on ethics reforms.

But that's not a good reason to veto the bill on limiting ethics fines.

The General Assembly changed the law on ethics fines in 2003, removing a $500 cap on the fines. Lawmakers had hoped that higher fines would make candidates for office more serious about filing the proper financial disclosure forms.

It didn't work. Now when candidates for city or county councils fail to file the proper paperwork, the fines can compound into six figures.

The state can't realistically collect those fines. If the fines aren't going to be collected, they aren't going to motivate candidates to do the paperwork.

Lawmakers were trying to make the fines a realistic factor again by limiting them to $5,000. The law should be enacted.

Vetoing it won't improve the ethical climate around state elections, but lawmakers should listen to the concerns of the governor.

Lawmakers have spent this session talking about holding closed caucus sessions, where a majority of the House or Senate could meet, discuss state policy and decide how to vote while keeping the entire discussion from the public.

The billboard industry spent large sums on lobbyists who convinced lawmakers to give that industry a gift in the form of a bill that severely limits the ability of cities and counties to regulate billboards.

And lawmakers passed a bill that allows them to establish special-purpose caucuses that can raise money to be spent on travel and entertainment for lawmakers.

It's easy to see why Sanford is concerned that "special interests are once again making inroads into the legislative process" and that ethics reforms are being undermined.

That trend, in combination with lawmakers' insistence on their right to meet behind closed doors, should concern all South Carolinians.