There have been a few grudging reforms in Santee Cooper's gift-giving over the years. Specifically, until at least 1990, political contributions to state leaders, including legislators, were a matter of course. Some internal intangible benefits also were pinpointed by the 1995 audit. For example, a university that received a $300,000 pledge named a building after a board member.

Further, it was only after the audit council review that Santee Cooper stopped giving money to religious organizations and private educational institutions.

The report warned of a constitutional prohibition against the expenditure of public funds "for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." Even though Santee Cooper's donations come from its operational revenue as opposed to taxpayers, the millions it has donated over the years were still public funds. Indeed, the audit council noted, pubic funds "include funds from any source in the hands of a public official."

Further, the auditors concluded that the expenditure of public funds must not only be for a public purpose but also must meet the corporate purpose test.

While many of Santee Cooper's donations may be defended as benefiting the population as a whole, the corporate purpose test is a far more stringent one.

Here is how the report defined Santee Cooper's legally mandated mission: "To develop the Cooper, Santee and Congaree Rivers ... so that they can be used for commerce and navigation. To reclaim wastelands by eliminating or controlling flood waters and to reforest the watersheds of the rivers. To develop, sell and distribute hydroelectric power. To treat, sell and distribute water at wholesale."

How, for example, does the financing of a golf tournament -- one of the Santee Cooper-funded events criticized by the governor -- meet any of those four goals? That, of course, is what the Santee Cooper board should be trying to determine before it takes any further action on some $2.4 million in charitable contribution requests.

The Legislative Audit Council hoped in vain that the matter would be resolved by a lawsuit filed by the South Carolina Policy Council -- a conservative-based public policy foundation -- while the audit was under way. But after three years of litigation and mounting legal costs, the council agreed in 1997 to settle the suit, saying some reforms had been achieved and the matter of policy should be left to the Legislature. Santee Cooper officials were quoted then as saying they had been vindicated and their basic policy was no different than that followed by utilities around the state and nation.

But that's precisely the point. State laws apply to Santee Cooper that don't apply to private utilities. Private companies can make contributions to private schools and religious institutions if that's what their stockholders want. Public bodies that handle public funds cannot.

The Policy Council is among those that have long advocated selling Santee Cooper to private interests, an idea that has never gotten serious attention in the Legislature. A cynic might suspect that Santee Cooper's widespread generosity has at least something to do with maintaining a strong base of support among politicians and community leaders.

Too bad the Legislature never followed up on the audit council's report and provided Santee Cooper with clear legal guidelines on the donation of public funds and resources. Gov. Sanford is taking the more direct approach by raising the issue with a board that, through his efforts, has had a substantial change in membership.

The board should follow the audit council's 14-year-old advice and judge each request for funds by whether it fulfills both a public and corporate purpose. That criteria should dramatically reduce the number of requests.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/100304/edi_03edit1.shtml