COLUMBIA, S.C. - Almost half of the people Gov. Mark Sanford appointed in his first six months in office were donors to his campaign.

According to analysis by The (Columbia) State newspaper, that's twice as many donor appointments as made by Sanford's predecessor Jim Hodges during the same timeframe in his term.

Sanford defended his appointments as friends and qualified people for the positions to which they were named.

Critics, however, including Hodges, say it looks like Sanford is doing what he accused Hodges of during the campaign - doling out appointments to people who gave money to his campaign.

According to the newspaper's analysis, 81 of Sanford's 167 appointments donated money to his campaign. In all, the governor collected $360,000 from those appointees, their families and the companies they control.

In contrast, Hodges named 36 campaign donors to positions during his first six months - about a quarter of the appointments he made during that period. In all, those appointees gave about $62,000 to Hodges' campaign.

"You obviously want to make certain that people are comfortable with the direction you want to take the agency," Hodges said. But, the former governor said, it looked hypocritical for Sanford to appoint so many donors to state positions when he so criticized the Hodges administration for doing it. "It's inconsistent to give us a hard time for something that apparently his record shows he's done much more often."

John Crangle, director of the South Carolina chapter government watchdog group Common Cause, said what Sanford is doing doesn't look good. "It's a spoils system this man is running at the present time," Crangle said.

Sanford said whether someone gave to his campaign was only one factor in picking appointees. A campaign contribution signals a commitment to him and his views, he said.

"You can buy in personally, you can buy in philosophically, you can buy in financially," Sanford said. "If someone has bought in financially, to preclude them just because of that would be unfair."

That's a bit of a change from Sanford's campaign days almost two years ago, when he wrote in a Nov. 21, 2001, column in The State newspaper: "While no one would deny that money is important to politics, there is a difference between donating to a campaign and a system of spoils.

"We have a right to express our political beliefs by supporting candidates, but we should not tolerate decisions that are reached (or appear to have been reached) based on who gave the most money."

Sanford said what he was criticizing Hodges for during the campaign was soliciting donations from companies doing business with the state. Hodges denied doing that.

Sanford appointees contacted by The State said they did not give money to Sanford's campaign in hopes of landing a slot on a board or commission.

Georgetown real estate developer Harry Butler and his family gave nearly $30,000 to Sanford's campaign. "I was taken with his honesty and directness and desire to bring efficiency to government, and, quite honestly, his ability to keep his promises," Butler said.

Butler was appointed to the State Ports Authority board in June. The position pays $975 a month.

He said he "didn't anticipate being asked to serve on anything" when he contributed to Sanford's gubernatorial campaign. He said he told Sanford "I didn't support you to get an appointment." But he said the governor told him businesspeople were needed on the board.

Sanford said it was a decision that already has paid off. "Nobody has piped up the way he did" at a recent Ports Authority board meeting, Sanford said of Butler's questioning of the ports' costs. "You have the management team of the Ports Authority looking across the room, glaring at their board member."

Information from: The State