 - Courts should end secrecy of South Carolina ethics process_files/goupstate1.gif)
This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Jul 28, 2004
Courts should end secrecy of South Carolina's ethics
process
The S.C. Supreme Court correctly upheld The Gaffney
Ledger's right to discuss an ethics charge brought against it, but the courts
should have gone further and ended the secrecy that surrounds ethics complaints
in this state.The complaint the court ruled on was filed with the state Ethics
Commission in 2000. It accused the Cherokee County newspaper of publishing a
political advertisement without including enough information about who paid for
the ad.The commission ruled in the newspaper's favor, and the newspaper printed
a story about the decision.But the commission ruled that the newspaper broke the
law by printing the story. State law prohibits any disclosure of an ethics
complaint unless the subject of the complaint waives the secrecy in writing to
the commission. The commission decided that since the Ledger hadn't waived its
right to secrecy, it couldn't print a story about the complaint. That's so
pointless that it's silly, but other secrecy provisions of state ethics laws do
more harm.In 1999, a North Myrtle Beach man filed an ethics complaint about two
County Council members. He was convicted of a crime when he revealed that he had
filed the complaint. State law prohibits anyone who knows about a complaint from
even revealing its existence.And lawmakers have given themselves even more
secrecy. If you bring a complaint against a lawmaker, even if the lawmaker is
found guilty of violating ethical standards, that fact may be kept secret
forever, and you are prohibited by law from ever telling anyone.The system is
outrageous. Lawmakers say it is intended to prevent public officials from being
harmed by false and frivolous ethics complaints, but it seems to be designed to
allow public officials to keep their ethical problems secret.The court ruled in
The Gaffney Ledger's favor, but it did not do enough to end this secrecy. It
ruled that once the complaint was settled, the parties could discuss it
publicly.It should have stripped these secrecy provisions from the law as
unconstitutional restrictions on citizens' freedom of speech. They represent a
government-imposed limit on the ability of citizens to criticize their elected
leaders.The court refused to take up that subject. By doing so, it ignored the
restriction of South Carolinians' constitutional freedom.