THE MOST dramatic — and surprising — argument Adjutant General Stan Spears puts forward for why our state should continue to have the only elected military leader in the free world is that an appointive system leads to political corruption.

Exhibit A in Gen. Spears’ presentation before a recent Senate public hearing was Kentucky, where he said the adjutant general is in prison for pressuring people to make $1,000 donations to the governor who appointed him to the position.

Exhibit B was Oklahoma, where he said the appointed adjutant general is in prison for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars as director of the Oklahoma National Guard Association, and using some of the money to make illegal contributions to the campaign of the governor who appointed him adjutant general.

It’s true that adjutants general in both of those states were convicted of crimes stemming from the incidents Gen. Spears alleged, although neither man is still in prison, both crimes going back more than a decade.

It’s also true that no adjutant general in South Carolina has ever been convicted — or even indicted; aren’t we proud! — on charges of political corruption.

But the most important, and, for obvious reasons, unstated truth is this: It is the practice of S.C. adjutants general or people acting on their behalf to hit up their subordinates for campaign donations.

Indeed, adjutants general in our state have long been dogged by allegations that are eerily similar to the situation that landed the Kentucky adjutant general in federal prison — and resulted in a U.S. Army investigation that found he kicked 15 officers out of the Guard for refusing to donate.

During the 2002 election campaign, The Charlotte Observer found that nearly half the money Gen. Spears had raised since he first ran in 1994 came from National Guard officers above the rank of captain, or their immediate family members. The Observer’s analysis, prompted by years of complaints from Guard members who said they felt tremendous pressure to contribute to Gen. Spears’ campaigns, also found that senior officers who made donations were nearly twice as likely to be promoted as those who did not.

This problem is not confined to our current adjutant general.

Gen. Spears’ predecessor, Eston Marchant, announced his retirement in 1994 amid two federal investigations of fund-raising for his campaigns. One probe was triggered by complaints by six Guard members who told The State they felt pressured to contribute to the adjutant general’s campaign, and that it was understood by officers that their contributions were to be based on their rank or grade.

Both adjutants general have consistently maintained that they never pressured anyone. But when I wrote a column after The Observer study arguing that Gen. Spears had no practical political choice but to raise money from Guard members, because we had forced him to act like a politician and politicians raise money, he called to tell me how right I was and to bemoan the fact that he had to raise money to run a campaign. (Then, as now, he disagreed with my conclusion: that this is yet another reason we should let the governor appoint the adjutant general.)

Those who are currently dependent on the system insist that there is no pressure applied at any level, and that any relationship between donations and promotions is mere coincidence. But even if you buy that argument, there’s another problem, which cannot be denied: The pressure works in the opposite direction.

Retired Army Guard Col. Harvey Shackleford, who served as chief of staff of the S.C. Army National Guard and executive director of the S.C. National Guard Association, heads a group of more than 60 retired general officers in the Guard who have concluded that we must stop electing adjutants general. As he told the same Senate subcommittee that heard from Gen. Spears: “The adjutant general is obligated to many of his subordinates for their financial support.”

This leaves the adjutant general in a no-win position. Promote your donors, and others will assume you’re doing it because they gave you money, and morale will suffer. Don’t promote your donors, in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, and some of your best officers get passed over in favor of less-qualified officers; this can lead to even worse consequences than poor morale.

Can political considerations and even corruption creep into a system of appointment by the governor? Obviously they can, and in more cases than those two that have led to criminal convictions. But which is worse: a system in which those problems can occur, or one that is set up in such a way that there is absolutely no way to avoid them?

Gen. Spears’ attempt to portray the appointive system as ripe for abuse is not merely an example of the pot calling the kettle black. This pot seems to think it is white.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.