The outdoor advertising industry was willing to incur great expense to encourage state lawmakers to endorse legislation that protects billboards in South Carolina. The latest tally puts the cost of lobbyists and campaign contributions at some $340,000, substantially more than estimated in earlier news reports.

The billboard campaign was successful, to say the least. The Legislature approved the bill that the industry wanted, and then overrode the governor's veto last month.

The cost of the campaign was cited in a Monday report by the State newspaper, which also noted that individual billboard companies made their own additional contributions to legislative candidates. The industry hired some of the state's top lobbyists last year to push billboard legislation that effectively supercedes local control over billboards by making the cost of their removal prohibitive.

Additionally, the Outdoor Advertising Association spent at least $3,400 on events that included lunch and breakfast meetings with legislators. They dined at places like Columbia's Capital City Club and the Palmetto Club. And the industry gave legislators as much as $2,500 for their campaigns. Of the 21 legislators who reportedly received at least $1,000, three are among the local delegation. Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley; Rep. George Bailey, R-Dorchester; and Rep. Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley, each received $1,000, the State reported.

Outdoor advertising spokesmen defend their efforts, and no one is suggesting that there is anything illegal about the industry's lobbying and campaign expenses. But it is more than a little troubling that so many legislators would support special interest legislation that strikes at home rule, even to the extent of making it retroactive. Several local laws on billboards that were approved last year, including the city of Charleston's, were struck down by the retroactivity provision.

Proponents of the billboard law contend that their votes were based on their support of property rights. The billboard bill would be more accurately described as special-interest legislation that comes at the expense of local control.