S.C. Statehouse
Report Sunday, March 27, 2005 VIEW: http://www.statehousereport.com/columns/05.0327.influence.htm
COMMENTARY More disclosure needed to
highlight influence peddlers By Andy
Brack SC Statehouse Report
MARCH 27, 2005 - - Not too many years
ago, some state and local government meetings really were
conducted in smoke-filled rooms.
Sunshine laws and the open-government movement created more
transparency and accountability, but a modern-day equivalent
of the smoke-filled room still exists: big money that pays to
influence legislation.
Current state campaign law requires lobbyists and their
employers to disclose a lot of information about contributions
paid to political candidates to influence the outcome of
elections. But when it comes to the next step - - influencing
the outcome of matters before lawmakers - - there's virtually
no disclosure required in South Carolina or any other state,
according to state ethics officials.
At first glance, it might not seem too important. But when
you consider the thousands of dollars some entities appear to
be spending to try to get lawmakers to change how things are
done that affect everyone in the state, it begs the question:
Who is paying?
A case in point revolves around the so-called Put Parents
In Charge proposal urged by Gov. Mark Sanford.
In ads reminiscent of those used by Sanford in his 2002
campaign ads, the S.C. Policy Council reportedly has paid at
least $217,000 for television air time of Sanford promoting
the proposal, which would siphon public school money to help
parents pay for private education.
ALSO THIS WEEK
McLEMORE'S
WORLD: About husbands
KEEPING
TRACK: New section
SCORECARD:
Thumbs up/down and mixed reviews
SUBSCRIPTION
INFO
FEEDBACK POLICY
We
encourage your feedback. If you'd like to respond to
something in SC Statehouse Report, please
send us an e-mail. We reserve the right to edit for
length and clarity. One submission allowed per month.
Submission of a comment grants permission to us to
reprint. Please keep your comment to 250 words or less:
feedback@statehousereport.com |
Putting aside the ethical question of Sanford receiving a
political benefit for free by appearing in the ad, it makes
one wonder - - who is really paying to push the Put Parents In
Charge ad?
S.C. Policy Council President Ed McMullen refused to answer
questions about the ad and its funders.
"That's none of your business," he said, adding that he
wouldn't be interviewed because he was irritated about
descriptions of the bill as a voucher proposal, instead of a
tax credit measure.
(In reality, the objection is pure semantics because bill
proponents want to control the language of the debate. But the
practical effect is the same - - a subsidy of private
education using public school dollars. Vouchers, or government
grants, do it directly; tax credits have the same purpose, but
do it indirectly.)
Voters deserve to know the people and money behind efforts
to influence lawmakers' votes because policies that are passed
will impact people across the state. Similarly, state
lawmakers deserve to know who is behind efforts to persuade
them to vote.
More accountability is called for. State lawmakers should
consider beefing up campaign disclosure laws to cover efforts
to influence legislation. Here are two ideas:
- Tax forms. Taxpayers would know more about how
lobbyist principals - - those who pay lobbying salaries - -
fund public relations efforts if they were required to make
their federal tax returns public when they provide other
campaign disclosure paperwork. Such a requirement wouldn't
cost anything to the companies, trade associations or
non-profit organizations because they have to fill out the
forms anyway.
- Disclose media budgets. A tougher measure would
be for lawmakers to require entities trying to influence
public opinion on legislation to disclose their contributors
when media advertising budgets exceed $5,000 per year. On a
parallel track, lawmakers may want to consider requiring
media outlets to disclose media purchases of more than
$5,000 by interest groups when advertising seeks to
influence the outcome of legislation.
Some may cry that such disclosure would be bad for the
process. Hogwash. Disclosure doesn't prohibit anybody or group
from doing exactly what they are doing now.
But disclosure increases transparency so voters have a
better idea what's going on. In the long run, that could help
modern-day smoke-filled rooms become a thing of the
past.
RECENT
COMMENTARY
McLEMORE'S
WORLD 3/27: About
husbands
Another great cartoon from Bill
McLemore:

LEARN MORE
DAILY
The best way to get South
Carolina news is to augment your morning paper and TV show
with SC Clips, a daily executive news summary
compiled from more than 30 state newspaper and TV sources.
It's delivered every business day and is packed with news of
statewide impact, politics, business and more. Subscriptions
are affordable at $30 per month -- and less for business
subscribers. More: SC Clips.
KEEPING
TRACK
In this new section, we will keep track of Statehouse
Report's record of forecasting what goes on in the
legislature. For example, at the beginning of the year, a
commentary called for no roads to be named for living
officials. Sixteen days later, House Speaker David Wilkins
introduced such a measure. Latest example:
SOUTH CAROLINA SCORECARD
Here's a "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" related to various
political events from the past week:
Thumbs up
Mabry. The State Transportation Commission gave a
thumb up this week to the job Betty Mabry is doing as the
agency's top official, despite Chairman Tee Hooper's
displeasure with her. The agency, however, will undergo an
outside review.
Local governments. Municipalities, counties and
environmentalists breathed a sigh of relief this week at the
Senate Agriculture Committee killed provisions of a bill that
would have stripped local authority to make some regulations
stricter than the state. The measure provides some
restrictions on local governments, but less stringent than
earlier.
Townsend. Hats off to GOP Rep. Ronnie Townsend, the
Anderson County Republican who heads the House Education and
Public Works Committee. He continued this week to rail against
the Sanford voucher plan by saying it wouldn't put parents in
charge.
Thumbs down
Morris. Another slap in the face went to former
Comptroller General and convicted securities violator Earle
Morris, whose name was removed this week from a state road
named after him.
Sanford. The governor suffered a big loss with a
Senate Finance Committee snubbing his banner income tax cut
proposal. He also seems to be headed to losing some political
power with Senate efforts to rein in gubernatorial control of
Santee Cooper.
SUBSCRIPTION
INFORMATION How you can subscribe to
the full edition of the
report
The above version of S.C. Statehouse Report is the
free edition. Our paid version, which costs about $100 per
month, offer a weekly legislative forecast packed with
information that can keep you and your business on the cutting
edge.
Notes veteran lawmaker Sen. Glenn McConnell: "Statehouse Report gives an inside
practical report of weekly problems with and progress of
legislation. It reviews the whole landscape."
In each issue of Statehouse Report, you'll get::
Hot issue -- an early peek at weekly commentary on
something really big. Last year, we continually beat other
news organizations in finding major trends in issues, from
teacher and budget cuts to wetlands proposals.
Agenda -- a weekly forecast of the coming week's
floor agenda
Radar Screen -- a behind-the-scenes look at what's
really going on in the General Assembly
McLemore's World -- an early view of our respected
cartoonist Bill McLemore.
Tally Sheet -- a weekly review of all of the new
bills introduced in the legislature in everyday language
Scorecard -- A Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down of major
political/policy events for the week.
Calendar -- a weekly list of major meetings for
the House, Senate and state agencies.
Megaphone -- a quote of the week that you'll find
illuminating.
To learn more about subscriptions, contact Andy Brack at:
brack@statehousereport.com |