STATE SENATE candidate Ken Wingate says he has “sent word to All Children Matter that I did not want them to get involved in my campaign.”

He was referring to the out-of-state group that ran ads supporting him in the primary. The Michigan-based organization supports Gov. Mark Sanford’s plan to allow some parents tax credits for sending their kids to private schools.

Noting he “did not seek their assistance in the primary,” Mr. Wingate said he has made it clear that he doesn’t want the group involved in his general election contest against Rep. Joel Lourie.

Not that he has rejected the group in harsh terms: He said he has simply told officials, “I would be comfortable just running my own campaign.” But he said that “If they do weigh in to the general election, then I will denounce their participation.”

Not that Mr. Wingate’s wishes determine what happens. “We have not made our final decision yet,” said J. Sam Daniels, a more-or-less local contact for All Children Matter, adding that “Nobody controls what we do. We do our thing, and if we decide to do something, we do it.” And that’s the problem: This group is in no way accountable to the people of South Carolina, and has no stake in South Carolina, but it wants to influence the course of our state.

Nevertheless, Mr. Wingate’s words were welcome. We endorsed him in the primary, but I was disturbed to see All Children Matter weigh in on his behalf after our endorsement. As I wrote in June, “I hope Mr. Wingate will sever his ties to this group by the fall, and renounce this very worst part of the Sanford agenda.”

He’s done one out of two. The best that can be said on the second point is that he expresses some reservations.

“Education tax credits I am in favor of,” says Mr. Wingate. “But I am concerned about the resources that might be pulled away from public schools.”

What, wonders Rep. Lourie, does that mean, seeing as how you can’t implement such a plan without diverting money that would otherwise have gone to public schools?

The Democrat suspects that Mr. Wingate qualifies his position to please the South Carolina electorate, which isn’t nearly as warm to the governor’s proposal as All Children Matter would like (which may be why in some of its ads, it didn’t even mention its agenda).

By offering such a qualified answer, Mr. Wingate “is backing away from previously held positions,” claims Rep. Lourie, noting that on the questionnaire that he filled out for Project Vote Smart, Mr. Wingate indicated clearly that he would support the tax credits.

Rep. Lourie, just as unequivocally, said he would oppose them.

All Children Matter sends out questionnaires, too. With regard to that, “I believe I did fill (it) out,” said Mr. Wingate, “... as I do for most organizations.”

Interestingly, Rep. Lourie did not receive a survey from the group — even though his friend Rep. James Smith, who has no opposition in the fall, did. Mr. Daniels said that was not intentional, and “I will send one out to him today.” Of course, he might save himself 37 cents: “I stand for everything they don’t and vice versa,” says Rep. Lourie.

And that’s still a point that separates him from his opponent.

When told that Mr. Wingate wanted nothing to do with All Children Matter, Rep. Lourie said: “That’s great. I’m delighted he’s going to do that. I have always felt that South Carolinians don’t need an out-of-state group telling us how to run our education policy.” (Assuming the group does stay out, which remains to be seen.)

But he questions the Republican’s motives. “Has he had a real change of heart? Where is he on the position that they advocate?”

“I tell you, man, he’s reading his poll numbers, and y’all (the newspaper) have done a great job of exposing that group,” said Rep. Lourie. “I think his pollsters are telling him, ‘You’ve got to back away from that a little bit.’”

I don’t know about that. Mr. Wingate has always maintained that he supported public schools, while at the same time favoring the “choice” option. The only way in which his position has evolved, he explains, is that he has come to realize more clearly that for kids in rural areas, “choice” would offer no real opportunity. He, unlike the governor, sees that public schools offer their only chance at an education. Still, he believes it’s possible to have the tuition tax credits and live up to the state’s obligation to public school kids — “a both-and, not an either-or.”

In the very Project Vote Smart questionnaire that Rep. Lourie points to, the two candidates agree on many other education issues. Both support national standards and testing, abstinence-only sex education and increasing state funds for hiring teachers.

But they part company on the issue of so-called “school choice.” This would not be an important point of contrast if the misbegotten tuition tax credit proposal didn’t constitute our governor’s entire education plan. And while he expresses qualms, Mr. Wingate still favors the concept. Mr. Lourie does not.

And that’s a very healthy political situation: Two South Carolinians competing for public office and having an honest disagreement on an issue. It’s even better when you have two candidates competing as to which of them can put the most distance between himself and an intrusive, manipulative outside group.

Write to Mr. Warthen at bwarthen@thestate.com.