Cut the Per Diem for South Carolina Lawmakers

High per diem rates actually serve as an incentive for a long session. Think about it. Legislators receive $131 a day for each "workday" or legislative day. The more legislative days, the more money they collect. If $131 doesn't seem like a lot of money, consider this: It's 7 percent higher than the average daily wage for most people in South Carolina. Read more here.

Legislative Power: Even More Than Meets the Eye

The S.C. General Assembly makes more than 420 direct appointments to executive boards and commissions such as the Research Centers of Economic Excellence Review Board and the Commission on Higher Education. In addition, the Legislature makes more than 100 direct appointments to the judiciary. While these numbers already show a concentration of power within the Legislature, they actually understate the case. Read more here.

Policy Council's Special Reports

The S.C. Policy recently released in-depth research showing the need for reform. The three parts of the series are:

• Reform the South Carolina Legislature
• Shorten South Carolina's Legislative Session
• Record Every Vote

Landess Will Speak at 'Rallying for Reform' Event

A group of Aiken activists has invited S.C. Policy Council President Ashley Landess to speak Tuesday at a special event -- "Rallying for Reform."
Landess will join Sen. Tom Davis, Rep. Ralph Norman and Matt Moore, executive director of the S.C. Club for Growth, at the Aiken Municipal Building Patio in The Alley. Landess will discuss the Policy Council's recent research findings concerning the concentration of legislative power and needed reform. The event, organized by Aiken Tea Party members and other area groups, begins at noon.

This Week On The Nerve

Story Collection Shows Extent of Lawmakers' 'Power Trip'

During the long Labor Day holiday weekend, check out the new Power Trip section on The Nerve. There you will find a growing compilation of articles written by The Nerve's investigative reporters revealing just how much power South Carolina lawmakers have.

Edge Proposal: $10 Million Tab for Medicaid?

This is one pill the state's Medicaid program may find impossible to swallow. A state budget proviso could result in South Carolina paying the highest Medicaid prescription drug rates in the country, The Nerve's Investigative Reporter Eric K. Ward reveals in this story.

Wasden: Swansea Still Thwarting Quest for Info

The Nerve was the first to break the story of the $10,000 price tag placed on public information requested by resident and Citizen Reporter Alberta Wasden. Investigative Reporter Kevin Dietrich is continuing to follow the ongoing story. Other media outlets have taken notice of The Nerve's work and are picking up the story, too, as Dietrich reports.

The Nerve Reader's Comment of the Week

Investigative Reporter Eric K. Ward's story, "Edge Proposal: $10 Million Tab for Medicaid?" riled up readers of The Nerve and spurred quite a few comments -- a few being from Rep. Tracy Edge himself. One reader, identified as CFL, posted a comment. Here is an excerpt: "I understand the need for elected officials to receive campaign funds but it does cast a light of impropriety on the candidate when those funds come from major corporations who are sharks. All the more reason for roll call votes. Sounds like you've hit a nerve with Rep. Edge." Thanks to all of The Nerve's devotees for not only reading the stories but commenting as well. We want your feedback! Tell us what you think about our stories and videos in the Comment section of The Nerve.

Landess Named Member of Franklin Center Advisory Council

S.C. Policy Council President Ashley Landess was recently appointed to the Advisory Council for the Frankin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a national nonprofit journalism organization. "We at the Franklin Center are honored to be working with such a terrific group of talented individuals. The people that make up the Franklin Center Advisory council come from different backgrounds but are united by their passion for journalism," Franklin Center President Jason Stverak said in a news release posted on the organization's website, http://www.franklincenterhq.org. Landess and the inaugural council's five other other members will contribute to the center's "mission of government transparency and accountability," Stverak said in the release.

S.C. Policy Council Research, The Nerve News Stories Getting More Mainstream Media Attention

The mainstream media is taking notice more and more of the S.C. Policy Council and The Nerve. Following the S.C. Policy Council's release of its legislative reform research last week, The Augusta Chronicle published an editorial, "In Desperate Need of Reform." You won't want to miss this. Investigative Reporter Kevin Dietrich's story about Swansea town government's $10,000 bill to fulfill a resident's Freedom of Information Act request has garnered the interest of several media outlets. WIS, which has the top-rated newscast in Columbia, picked up the story and reported on it Monday evening. Read Dietrich's first story, along with his follow-up that The Nerve published earlier this week. The Times and Democrat in Orangeburg also ran an editorial about the Swansea FOIA issue that you can read here. Also, check out Doug Fisher's "Common Sense Journalism" column, where he features FOI Abuse: Little Town Wants Big Money for Records. Fisher is a senior instructor at USC's journalism school.

Want to learn more? See our previous research on shortening session:

·          Cut the Budget … By Cutting Length of Session

·         Best and Worst: Restructuring

Reports from The Nerve

·         Legislators Waste Time Debating Heritage Animals

·         The Plight of The Marsh Tacky

Want to learn more, see our previous research on legislative reform:

·         Transparency and Accountability: Necessary Reforms For South Carolina Government

·         The Best and Worst to Come: A Review of Restructuring Legislation for 2009-2010

·         Taxpayers Lose in Government-Funded Lobbying Game

·         Fast Facts About the Budget & Control Board

·         Budget And Control Board Billing Should Be Transparent, Competitive

·         SCRA: The Path to (Personal) Prosperity

·         Transparency Reforms Needed in Sc Government

·         South Carolina Supreme Court Seat Number Three, South Carolina Court of Appeals Seat Number Six

Want to learn more? See our previous research on roll call voting:

·         2010 Votes Tracker

·         2009 Votes Tracker

·         Constitutionality of Roll Call Voting Requirement

·         Policy Council President Ashley Landess testifies before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee

·         Roll Call Voting in South Carolina Fact Sheet

·         Significant Legislation Passed by Voice Vote in 2009

·         Legislative rules won’t promote transparency  

·         2009 General Assembly Voted Anonymously 75 Percent of the Time

·         House Rules Change Is Not Transparency; Most Bills Are Exempt From Recorded Vote Requirement

·         South Carolina Nation’s Worst At Requiring Recorded Votes

·         South Carolina General Assembly Should Call Roll

Reports from The Nerve

·         Roll-Call Voting Bill Fizzles in Senate

·         Lawmakers Turning Their Backs on Roll-Call Voting

·         Cartoon by Robert Ariail 06/15/2010

Reform the Legislature

Count Every Vote

Shorten the Session

Download the PDF

Reform the Legislature

As it is the center of power in the state, reform must begin with the South Carolina General Assembly. But the Legislature itself is essentially run by four individuals: the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, and the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The scope of their power is wide-ranging:

• The Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore, combined, make more than 100 appointments to executive branch boards and commissions—15 percent as many as the governor himself.
• The Legislature makes more than 420 appointments to 165 boards and commissions. This is more than half as many as the governor makes.
• The Speaker of the House appoints all committee members, who in turn, select the chair of each committee. This includes the chair of the House Ways & Means Committee.
• The chair of the House Ways & Means Committee and the chair of the Senate Finance Committee exercise enormous power over state government by virtue of their positions on the Budget & Control Board (BCB).
• The BCB itself controls billions in state spending and holds power over many functions that in other states belong to an executive-level Department of Administration.

• Unlike the other three members of the BCB, the legislative members of the board are not elected to statewide office. In fact, the Senate Finance chair is in no way accountable to voters statewide and holds his position based solely on seniority.

Shorten Session

South Carolina has the longest legislative session in the Southeast and the longest in the country, among part-time legislatures. The session is five-months long, meeting three days a week. Such a lengthy session is not only unnecessary, it bars most citizens from serving in the Legislature. In turn, South Carolina’s long session fosters a political culture that encourages special-interest legislation and high spending.

• Measured in terms of months, South Carolina has the longest session in the Southeast (tied for 1^st with Tennessee).
• South Carolina also has the 6^th longest session in the country, in term of months (tied with 7 other states).
• Academic studies have found that professional, full-time legislatures pass more bills catering to special interests and spend more than part-time legislatures. In other words, professional legislatures are more prone to pressure from lobbyists and this translates into higher spending.
• South Carolina’s long legislative session means more time for lobbyists—356 representing 488 companies, including 86 taxpayer-funded lobbyists —to influence lawmakers. There are two registered lobbyists for every legislator in South Carolina.
• South Carolina’s long session produces few results, both in terms of sound public policy, or even the number of bills introduced and passed. The South Carolina Legislature passed about 1 bill a year/per legislator during the 2009 and 2010 sessions. Legislators introduced about 7 bills annually during the same period.

Record Every Vote

The first step toward holding the legislative leadership accountable for their actions is to hold legislators accountable for their votes. Yet, the Senate and House combined voted on the record less than 25 percent of the time in both 2009 and 2010. By contrast, 45 other states require a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.

• In a representative democracy citizens have a basic right to know how their legislators are voting. As such, roll call voting requirements should be protected by statute, if not constitutional law.
• Legislation requiring recorded votes cannot be reduced to procedural questions regarding General Assembly rules, but are a fundamental right. As such, a law requiring roll call voting for every bill, resolution and amendment would withstand constitutional challenge.
• The General Assembly recorded only 25 percent of its votes in 2010, the same as in 2009. The percentage of recorded votes in the House declined from 31 percent in 2009 to 27 percent in 2010. In the Senate, the percentage increased from 16 percent in 2009 to 22 percent in 2010.
• Significant legislation routinely passes on anonymous voice votes. This includes measures seeking to create new agencies; grant targeted tax exemptions and corporate subsidies; and impose new business regulations and fees.

Government in South Carolina is not working.

The state consistently ranks at the bottom in terms of jobs, income, education and health. It’s time for fundamental change. Change that begins by taking back power from the Legislature, cutting spending and shortening session, and providing for real transparency and accountability. South Carolina’s future depends on it.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

Executive Summary

Any way you measure it, South Carolina has one of the longest legislative sessions in the country. Such a lengthy session is not only unnecessary, it bars most citizens from serving in the Legislature. In turn, South Carolina’s long session fosters a political culture that encourages special-interest legislation and high spending.

1. South Carolina’s legislative session is five-months long, meeting three days a week. This translates into 21 weeks a year. By comparison, the national median is 4 months, or 16 weeks.
2. Measured in terms of months, South Carolina has the longest session in the Southeast (tied for 1st with Tennessee) and the 6th longest (tied with 7 other states) in the country.
3. Academic studies have found that professional, full-time legislatures pass more bills catering to special interests and spend more than part-time legislatures. In other words, professional legislatures are more prone to pressure from lobbyists and this translates into higher spending.
4. South Carolina’s long legislative session means more time for lobbyists—356  representing 488 companies, including 86 taxpayer-funded lobbyists —to influence lawmakers. There are two registered lobbyists for every legislator in South Carolina.
5. South Carolina’s long session produces few results, both in terms of sound public policy, or even the number of bills introduced and passed. The South Carolina Legislature passed about 1 bill a year/per legislator during the 2009 and 2010 sessions. Legislators introduced about 7 bills annually during the same period.

The following reforms would place South Carolina’s session on par with other states:

1. Require session to end by 5 p.m. on the second Friday in April (roughly 90 calendar days)
2. Cap session at no more than 45 legislative days within the above calendar limit
3. Cap legislative budget spending increases at the rate of inflation

In the end, shortening session is about changing the culture of South Carolina’s state government. Fewer days in Columbia means less face time with lobbyists and more time spent at home with constituents. Fewer days in Columbia means less money for legislative staff and more money for ordinary taxpayers. Most important, less time in Columbia means less government—more prosperity and more freedom.

Shorten South Carolina’s Legislative Session

Download the PDF.

One of the Longest Sessions in the Country

Any way you measure it, South Carolina has one of the longest legislative sessions in the country. Legislators meet five months each and every year. In terms of months, that means South Carolina has the longest session in the Southeast (tied for 1^st with Tennessee) and the 6^th longest in the country (tied with 7 other states).

In terms of weeks, South Carolina’s session can be pegged at 21 weeks. That gives us the 2^nd longest session in the Southeast and the 14^th longest in the country. Excluding the nation’s 10 full-time, professional legislatures, South Carolina has the longest session in the country as measured by months and the 7^th longest session in terms of weeks. By comparison, the median length of session for state legislatures is 16 weeks.[1] Thus, South Carolina’s session is more than a month longer than in most states.

Professional Legislatures and Career Politicians

Legislatures are usually classified as being either full-time, professional bodies, or part-time, citizen bodies. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), four states have fully “professional” legislatures while another six have mostly professional bodies. Six states have fully “citizen” legislatures while eleven more have mostly citizen legislatures. The remaining states, including South Carolina, have “hybrid” legislatures—meaning their legislative bodies display a mix of professional and citizen characteristics.

In practice, the S.C. Legislature convenes five months a year: from January to the beginning of June. Technically, legislators meet three days a week—Tuesday to Thursday—during this time. For the 118^th General Assembly Session, they met for an average of 59 working days each year. (These figures are lower than normal because of several “furloughs” taken by the House and Senate.)

The actual number of legislative days, however, is less important than the fact that session takes up nearly half a year. In practice, this means South Carolina does have a largely professional legislature. Most South Carolinians cannot work only Mondays and Fridays (not to mention travel time) for five months out of the year. At the minimum, then, being a state legislator requires a five-month, full-time commitment. But, in essence, this five-month commitment is not much different than an entire year. Again, most people cannot take five months off from work or other commitments each year. And this does not even take into account the time needed to campaign for office and run in primary and general elections. Thus South Carolina’s five-month-long session bars most ordinary citizens from being lawmakers.

The difference between a professional legislature and a citizen legislature can be made more vividly illustrated by contrasting the following two types or models: that of the “career politician” and the “citizen legislator.”

For the career politician, re-election is more important than making good laws or serving constituents. These latter considerations may have value to the career politician, but they are subordinate to remaining in office. This is especially true because the career politician has no other livelihood or marketable skills. In turn, the career politician is more readily influenced by lobbyists and special interests because these interests are the primary sources of campaign contributions.

The citizen legislator, on the other hand, holds public office as a form of public service. George Washington, who was reluctant to serve a second-term as the first U.S. president and refused a third term, is the model citizen statesman. Like Washington, the citizen legislator may devote his life to the service of his country or state, but not out of self-interest, much less on behalf of special interests.

Budget Appropriations Per Capita, 2009-2010: Neighboring States

It would be naïve to hold every legislator up to the model of Washington. In reality, most lawmakers have conflicting impulses that reflect both types. As we shall see, though, the political culture created by a long session makes it far easier to be a career politician than a citizen legislator.

High Spending and Influential Lobbyists

Above we correlate a long session with a professional legislature that fosters the rise of career politicians with close ties to lobbyists and special interests. These assumptions are not mere speculation but supported by academic evidence.

Gamm and Kouser (2010) have found that professional legislatures tend to cater more to special interests and pass more bills benefitting targeted groups. In turn, Owings and Borck (2000) have concluded that professional legislatures spend more than citizen legislatures. In other words, professional legislatures are more prone to pressure from lobbyists and this translates into higher spending.

Legislative Appropriations Per Capita, 2009-2010: Neighboring States

As discussed in Unleashing Capitalism, the Policy Council’s blueprint for prosperity in South Carolina, lobbying is a form of unproductive entrepreneurship. This is because lobbying does not produce new resources or products, but is dedicated to taking resources (tax dollars) from taxpayers and giving it to special interests. In 2010, there were 356 registered lobbyists representing 488 companies and organizations. Thus, there were more than two lobbyists for every legislator.

While the unproductive entrepreneurship of lobbyists constitutes a drain on the state’s economy, what’s worse is the “pay-to-play” culture that lobbying fosters. This culture not only facilitates the rise of career politicians, it empowers them. Likewise, it is this culture that has led lawmakers to act as if they are responsible for directing the state’s economy and picking economic winners and losers.

Such an attitude has translated into more than $1.5 billion in economic incentives spending since FY1995. Likewise, state spending continues to increase, hitting an all-time high of $21 billion in 2010, in spite of the ongoing recession.

While a long session provides numerous opportunities for lobbyists to influence legislation, it also helps sustain high salaries for legislative staff. As reported by the online investigative news site The Nerve: “The Senate will spend slightly more than $4 million in $50,000-plus salaries for 56 staffers this fiscal year, while the 124-member House will spend $2.4 million in $50,000-plus salaries for its 35 highest-earning employees. The average top salaries in the Senate and House are $72,439 and $69,760, respectively.” Moreover, the Senate was one of a handful of agencies to receive a budget increase in FY10-2011—with the $3 million increase being used to fund Senate staff salaries.

Finally, it goes without saying that shortening session would save money insofar as a long session drives up per diem reimbursement (South Carolina's is high for a relatively small state in terms of geography) and creates ongoing infrastructure and administrative costs.

A Long Session with Few Results

South Carolina’s long legislative session could be shortened without compromising legislative effectiveness in any way. As indicated above, most states have much shorter sessions. Of course, in these states the Legislature does not attempt to run state government by controlling the executive branch.

But how do we measure legislative effectiveness? The most obvious answer is in terms of how well South Carolina is doing in terms of basic outcomes like unemployment, per capita income, education and health. As it turns out, we are not doing very well:

• Employment: South Carolina is at the bottom, having the 6^th highest unemployment rate in the country, as of July 2010.
• Income: Again at the bottom, with the 4^th lowest per capita income in the country, at $31,799 for 2009.
• Education: 4^th worst high school completion rate in the country. Lowest SAT scores in the Southeast and 4^th lowest in the county.
• Health Care: 5^th unhealthiest state in 2009, as based on comprehensive data compiled by America’s Health Rankings.

Alternatively, we can also judge legislative effectiveness by internal legislative standards—for instance, in terms of number of bills introduced and passed each session. Even here, South Carolina falls short.

Texas, for instance, has one of the shorter sessions in the country—meeting once every two years for 140 calendar days. Yet, Texas’ 181 legislators introduced 7,419 bills in 2009-2010, compared to 2,454 for South Carolina. Likewise, legislators in Virginia, which has one of the shortest sessions in the Southeast (ranked 10^th in terms of weeks), passed 1,541 bills in 2010—more than any other state in the region.

By comparison, the South Carolina Legislature passed about one bill a year/per legislator during the 2009 and 2010 sessions. Legislators introduced about seven bills annually during the same period. This failure to introduce new legislation could indicate that lawmakers simply don’t have many good ideas; and/or that many of them feel stifled by a legislative leadership that exercises tight control over what bills are passed—and passed over.

In any event, the quality of a legislature is measured neither by its length nor the number of bills it passes, but by the quality of life its governance helps foster. Here, again, South Carolina lawmakers are failing their constituents.

Instead of introducing bills that would bring about free market reform in areas as diverse as education and the environment, legislators wasted time on a variety of onerous and impractical ideas in 2010. They include:

• Granting special permission for legislators to carry concealed weapons (H 4112)
• Licensing musical therapists (H 4624)
• Regulating automobile advertising disclaimers (H 4607)

Likewise, during the 2010 session lawmakers indulged in several lengthy debates on trivial issues, such as whether the marsh tacky should be named the official state heritage work animal.

But if lawmakers are not improving South Carolina’s quality of life, much less debating innovative public policy ideas, why are they in session so long? It would seem South Carolina’s long session is primarily devoted to maintaining the legislative leadership’s control over state government—that is, attempting to run state government.

As detailed in the companion report to this brief, Reform the Legislature, the General Assembly controls all upper-level judicial branch appointments and hundreds of executive branch appointments. By means of the two positions they hold on the Budget & Control Board, the legislative leadership also exercises a great deal of power over the daily operation of state executive agencies. The irony, of course, is that in attempting to maintain control over the executive branch, the Legislature is failing to use its proper authority to actually pass substantial legislation that would bring prosperity to South Carolina.

Shorten Session to 45 Legislative Days

While 16 weeks is the national median, many states have much shorter legislative sessions. Here in the Southeast, the average legislature met for 94 days during

the 2009 and 2010 sessions: translating into 47 actual days per year. Capping South Carolina’s legislative session at 45 days should thus give legislators more than enough time to complete their duties.

The following reforms would place South Carolina’s session on par with other states:

• Require session to end by 5 p.m. on the second Friday in April (roughly 90 calendar days)
• Cap session at no more than 45 legislative days within the above calendar limit
• Cap legislative budget spending increases at the rate of inflation

Shortening session is about more than just cutting costs and increasing access for ordinary citizens; it is about changing the culture in South Carolina’s state government. Fewer days in Columbia means less face time with lobbyists and more time spent at home with constituents. Fewer days in Columbia means less money for legislative staff and more money for ordinary taxpayers. Most important, less time in Columbia means less government—more prosperity and more freedom.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

[1]Length of session is calculated using statutory and constitutional limits for odd and even year sessions. Those states that do not have a statutory or constitutional session limit were asked to identify what their informal cutoff date is for session. Calculations using actual days met for 2009 and 2010 produced similar results and will be released in a forthcoming report. Session months and weeks are defined in the most comprehensive manner possible. For instance, South Carolina’s Legislature meets for 3 legislative days within a 5-day calendar period. These 3 days are counted as one session week. If a legislature met for only 1 day a week that 1 day would also signify a full session week, and so on.

Executive Summary

South Carolina’s General Assembly has long enjoyed a virtual monopoly of power over the state’s government and economy. The Legislature overshadows the executive branch and controls judicial branch appointments. Likewise, the Legislature directs South Carolina’s economy by means of numerous boards and regulations, as well as by distributing billions of dollars in economic incentives and tax breaks to special interests.

Appointment Power Over Hundreds of Executive and Judicial Branch Positions

1. The Legislature makes more than 420 appointments to executive branch boards and commissions—more than half as many as the governor makes.
2. The Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore, combined, make more than 120 appointments to executive branch boards and commissions—15 percent as many as the governor himself.
3. The Legislature also exercises significant influence over the judicial branch through its exclusive control of upper-level judiciary appointments. South Carolina is the only state in the country that gives its legislature such power.

Concentrated Power in the Legislative Leadership

1. The Legislature itself is essentially run by four individuals: the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, and the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
2. The Speaker of the House appoints all committee members, who in turn, select the chair of each committee. This includes the chair of the House Ways & Means Committee.
3. The chair of the House Ways & Means Committee and the chair of the Senate Finance Committee exercise enormous power over state government by virtue of their positions on the Budget & Control Board (BCB).
4. Unlike the other three members of the BCB, the legislative members of the board are not elected to statewide office. In fact, the Senate Finance chair is in no way accountable to voters statewide and holds his position based solely on seniority.

Control Over the Economy, Education and Other Areas

1. The Legislature exercises tacit control over the state’s government and economy by means of 250-plus boards and commissions that regulate nearly every activity in the state. 
2. By means of such agencies as the S.C. Research Authority and the Endowed Chairs Program the legislative leadership is seeking to create a top-down, government-driven economy for South Carolina.
3. The General Assembly likewise exercises a great deal of control over K-12 school policy via the State Board of Education and over the state’s university system by means of its appointment power over higher-ed boards.
4. Finally, in the name of “job creation,” legislators have allocated more than $1.5 billion in economic incentives to favored business interests.

If one of the primary obstacles to good government in South Carolina is a state constitution that concentrates power in the Legislature, there are several statutory changes that would go a long way toward breaking the Legislature’s control over our state’s government and economy. These include: eliminating the Budget & Control Board; reforming the Senate committee selection and chairman appointment process; and increasing gubernatorial authority over executive branch boards and commissions.

Reform the South Carolina Legislature

Download the PDF.

One of the primary obstacles to good government in South Carolina is a state constitution that concentrates power in the Legislature—at the expense of both the executive and judicial branches, as well as ordinary taxpayers. This power structure goes back to colonial times and is rooted in the control exercised by large plantation owners over the state’s government and economy.[1] Today, not much has changed. The Legislature still overshadows the executive branch and controls who serves in the judicial branch. Likewise, the Legislature directs South Carolina’s economy by means of numerous boards and regulations, as well as by distributing billions of dollars in economic incentives and targeted tax wbreaks to special interests.

Legislative Control over the Executive Branch

South Carolina’s gubernatorial office has long been recognized as the weakest in the country. And although executive authority has increased somewhat over the past few decades, the Legislature is generally able to pursue its own aims, regardless of what the governor, or even the voters, of South Carolina might want. Routine encroachments of legislative power include:

• Undermining the governor’s authority to make and remove appointments—for instance, to the Ports Authority; the Aeronautics Commission; the S.C. Research Authority; and the Office of Small and Minority Business Assistance.
• Allowing local delegations consisting of as few as one legislator in each chamber to override gubernatorial vetoes of local bills.
• Using the Budget & Control Board to control state finances, as well as executive agency operations.

In particular, the Legislature exercises tacit control over the state’s government and economy by means of the 250-plus boards and commissions that regulate nearly every activity in the state. There is an Education Board, Energy Board, Medical Examiners Board, even a Board of Distribution of Dead Human Bodies and a Perpetual Care Cemetery Board.

If both the legislative and executive branches share blame for this vast proliferation of regulatory bodies, the Legislature is ultimately responsible for creating these agencies and their corresponding regulatory and licensing/fee requirements. In particular, the Legislature uses these regulatory boards to control various executive branch functions. We have already mentioned legislative attempts to manipulate appointments to the

Ports Authority, the S.C. Research Authority and other boards. Even more telling is the sheer number of appointments made by the Legislature. Based in our analysis, the Legislature makes more than 420 appointments to executive branch boards and commissions. This is compared to more than 780 by the governor..[2] In other words, the Legislature makes more than half as many appointments as does the governor

Gubernatorial vs. Legislative Appointments to Executive Branch Boards/Commissions

Properly speaking, the legislative branch is responsible for making the law while the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law. Accordingly, the executive branch is supposed to exercise sole responsibility over routine administrative government activities. At the very least, the governor should have controlling authority over every board and commission, with the power to make a majority of appointments and to remove these appointments at will. In South Carolina, that is not the case. In fact, the Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tempore combined make more than 120 executive branch appointments, 15 percent as many as the governor himself.

Legislative Control over the Judicial Branch

The Legislature exercises significant control over the judicial branch through its exclusive control over upper-level judiciary appointments. In fact, South Carolina is the only state in the country that gives its legislature such power. (Virginia’s General Assembly also appoints judges, but the governor may fill unexpired terms.) In practice, this means the judiciary is subordinate to the Legislature.

Theoretically, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission provides guidance and vets potential judges, who are then elected in a joint session of the General Assembly. But the 10-member commission itself is controlled by the legislative leadership, with the Speaker of the House making five appointments, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee making three appointments, and the Senate President Pro Tempore making two appointments. In addition, the Legislature exercises control over the judiciary by means of the state budget (the department’s budget has been cut by more than $20 million since 2000).

Legislative Control over State and Local Government

The Budget & Control Board

In addition to the budget, the primary means by which the Legislature controls state government is via the Budget & Control Board (BCB). The BCB is the only entity of its kind in the country. The board is made up of five elected officials: the governor, the treasurer, the comptroller general, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. In addition to making a wide array of state budgetary decisions, the BCB also holds power over many functions that in other states belong to a cabinet-level Department of Administration. These functions include: building and operational maintenance, administration of the State Health Plan and state employee retirement systems, procurement for all agencies, and some human resources duties. Moreover, while its own agency budget is relatively small, the BCB actually controls billions in state funding.

Research by the Policy Council has detailed some of the inefficiencies arising from the BCB’s administrative control over executive agencies.[3] The BCB also exercises significant power over state finances and, when the Legislature is out-of-session, is even empowered to make budget cuts.

The deeper problem is that the BCB undermines gubernatorial authority by delegating executive functions to five individuals, two of which are drawn from the legislative leadership. The result is a fragmentation of executive authority and a resulting loss of accountability. In practice, a coalition comprised of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, and the state treasurer have consistently used their BCB voting powers to override the governor’s policies—a constitutionally questionable practice.

Education and Other Local Matters

The General Assembly has frequently passed legislation that interferes in local matters. Examples from the 2010 session include: dictating county budget priorities (cf. FY2011 budget, proviso 86.6); intervening in local school board controversies (H 4431 and H 4432); and passing constitutionally questionable laws tailored for individual counties (H 3624).

Especially as it relates to education, the General Assembly exercises a great deal of control over school policy via the State Board of Education. The Board’s 16 members are elected by their respective legislative delegations, with the governor appointing only 1 at-large member. In addition, the legislative leadership plays a significant role in administering education policy via the Education Oversight Committee. The leadership itself appoints 8 of the committee’s 18 members.

Legislative control over South Carolina’s higher educational system is even more complete. According to the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 71 percent of higher education board members nationwide are appointed by governors, typically with legislative confirmation of gubernatorial appointees. In South Carolina this ratio is reversed, with the Legislature appointing 78 percent of higher-ed board trustees at the state’s 10 leading public universities and colleges. As such, South Carolina is one of only three states (along with Minnesota and North Carolina) in which the majority of public higher-educational board trustees are directly appointed by the Legislature.

Legislative Control over the State’s Economy

Here it is only possible to provide a sketch of how the Legislature directs South Carolina’s economy. This control is essentially exercised in two ways:

1. By means of numerous regulatory bodies and licensing requirements
2. By using public dollars to invest in and subsidize research not supported by the free market; and to award targeted tax breaks and special incentives to private entities

We have already mentioned how the Legislature exercises control over the state’s economy by means of numerous regulatory boards. Unleashing Capitalism, an economic blueprint for restoring free-market principles to South Carolina, explains how this tangle of regulations impacts business:

Many citizens are unaware of the extent to which the federal and state government intervenes in our daily lives. Indeed, government affects almost everything we do, either directly or indirectly. Government taxes almost all monetary transactions, it licenses workers in a wide variety of industries, it regulates technical aspects of many types of consumer products. Government even controls individuals’ behavior on private property. Seldom do voters consider the aggregate monetary and non-monetary costs of government regulation.

All in all, the regulatory burden imposed by the Legislature, and accompanying boards and commissions, costs state businesses billions in lost productivity—with small businesses impacted the most.[4] This is in addition to the federal regulatory burden, w is estimated at between $1.1 trillion and $1.2 trillion nationwide.

The second way in which the Legislature controls the economy is via government driven economic development policies. More precisely, such policies entail using government power (via grants, taxes, fees, regulations, etc.) to provide or promote services that are better left to the free market. By interfering in the economy, government not only wastes tax dollars (by inefficiently allocating resources), it also picks winners and losers in the marketplace. Thus, the objections to a state-run economy are both economic and moral.

Legislative leaders make no secret of their desire to create a top-down economy in South Carolina. Unveiled as part of a “knowledge-economy jobs plan,” the legislative leadership has proposed using a pyramid of 35 state and local entities to essentially plan the state’s economy.

At the top of the pyramid is the South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA). The Authority is a nonprofit entity that manages federal research projects and collaborates with industry and universities. Thus far the Authority has developed several research parks in an attempt to imitate the success of such places as Research Triangle Park in North Carolina and Silicon Valley in California. “Think of the SCRA as the central nervous system of state government’s involvement in the economy,” writes investigative reporting Web site The Nerve. “Created in 1983 under state legislation, the Research Authority extends far-reaching tentacles throughout the business world in South Carolina.”

The Legislative leadership directly appoints two members of the SCRA’s Board. But the Board also includes five university presidents, as well as the chairman of the Commission on Higher Education. As indicated above, the Legislature appoints the majority of trustees on the state’s higher-education boards.

The Legislature also exercises influence over SCRA by means of the state budget. To begin with, the SCRA was created with a taxpayer funded grant of 1,400 undeveloped acres of land and $500,000. More recently, during the 2010 legislative session, lawmakers passed a joint resolution (S 1190) transferring 109 acres of land to the SCRA. Originally dedicated to a failed farmer’s market project, the land is being paid for via a 2 percent tax increase on prepared food/beverages sold in Richland County. In addition, the 2010 Legislature also tried to give the SCRA the power to conduct economic development and educational improvement activities in counties along I-95, in conjunction with a proposed I-95 Corridor Authority (cf. S 1323). The endeavor failed, but may be resurrected next session.

Another agency being used by the Legislature to direct the state’s economy is the S.C. Centers of Economic Excellence (CoEE). Also known as the Endowed Chairs Program, the CoEE allows USC, Clemson and the Medical University of South Carolina to tap into more than $200 million in taxpayer funds to hire research experts with the goal of spurring economic development.

In the end, both the SCRA and the Endowed Chairs Program are trying to hit upon the “next big thing” that will bring prosperity to South Carolina. The likely result will be wasted tax dollars as state bureaucrats prop up companies the private sector is unwilling to support.

Unleashing Capitalism extensively documents the state’s attempts to pick winners and losers in the marketplace by means of targeted tax cuts and subsidies. In the name of “job creation,” legislators have allocated more than $1.5 billion in economic incentives to favored business interests. This system of patronage benefits lobbyists and lawmakers at the expense of ordinary businessmen who would be better served by broad based tax cuts and regulatory reform.

Finally, the Legislature exercises influence over numerous economic sectors and activities by means of various agencies over which it has appointment power, such as the Ports Authority Review and Oversight Commission, the Transportation Infrastructure Bank, the Public Service Commission, and the Retirement System Investment Commission.

Conclusion

It is likely that good government in South Carolina will ultimately require constitutional reform. But even as we work toward this reform, there are several statutory changes that would go a long way toward breaking the Legislature’s control over our state’s government and economy. They include:

• Eliminating the Budget & Control Board
• Limiting session length to 45 legislative days
• Requiring a recorded vote on every bill and joint resolution
• Reforming the Senate committee selection and chairman appointment process
• Reviewing all boards and commissions and increasing gubernatorial appointments to various agencies
• Reviewing and sunsetting onerous regulations and licensing requirements (such as the required 1,500 hours of training for cosmetologists)
• Abolishing the Education Oversight Committee
• Enacting economic incentive transparency legislation

The consolidation of power in the legislative branch makes reforming state government more difficult in South Carolina than anywhere else. Given the impotence of the executive and judicial branches, the best chance for reform must come from within the Legislature itself. In practice, this means reform-minded legislators being held accountable by the people they represent. In other words, the best chance for reform in South Carolina lies with the people of South Carolina.

Appendix: Legislative Appointments to Select Boards and Commissions

Legislative Power in South Carolina

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

[1]See C. Blease Graham, “South Carolina’s Constitutions,” citing David D. Wallace, South Carolina: A Short History, p. 345.

[2]This calculation is based on analysis of appointment powers made to 165 boards and commissions, as identified in the 2010 Legislative Manual and crosschecked against state statutes. The governor’s office, however, reports that there are more than 250 statewide boards and commissions. We have excluded agencies and departments from our count—such as the Department of Insurance and the S.C. Law Enforcement Division. We have also excluded Budget & Control Board divisions, such as Office of Human Resources and Information Technology; although the BCB itself is included in the final count.

[3]Cf. “Budget & Control Board Billing Should Be Transparent, Competitive” (June 2009).

[4]The fines/fees, or Other Funds, portion of the budget alone runs about $7 billion each year. These fines/fees do not directly correlate with the cost of the state’s regulatory burden, but give a sense of the fiscal impact of such regulations. At the federal level, the regulatory burden is estimated at 40 percent to 50 percent of total government spending (see “Ten Thousand Commandments: 2009,” Competitive Enterprise Institute). A 2005 study by the Small Business Administration found that the cost of federal regulatory burdens are much higher for small businesses: $7,647 per employee, compared to $5,282 per employee for firms with 500 employees or more.

Executive Summary

The first step toward holding the legislative leadership accountable for their actions is to hold legislators accountable for their votes.  The people of South Carolina have a fundamental right to know how their legislators are voting. Yet, in spite of widespread public support for roll call voting, three-quarters of all votes remain off the record. 

1. The General Assembly recorded only 25 percent of its votes in 2010, the same as in 2009.
2. The percentage of recorded votes in the House declined from 31 percent in 2009 to 27 percent in 2010. In the Senate, the percentage increased from 16 percent in 2009 to 22 percent in 2010.
3. The General Assembly routinely passes significant legislation on anonymous voice votes. This includes measures seeking to: create new agencies; grant targeted tax exemptions and corporate subsidies; and impose new business regulations and fees.
4.  By contrast, 45 other states require a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.
5. 37 states have a constitutional requirement that lawmakers hold a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.

 In 2008, the Policy Council pushed for reforms that prompted rules changes in both the House and Senate that led to more recorded votes for the 118th General Assembly. But not only do these rules changes not have the force of law, they also didn’t lead to many more recorded votes. If roll call voting is necessary to a representative democracy, this duty should not be subject to the whims of the legislative leadership in its rulemaking capacity. Rather, it should be a right protected by statute, if not constitutional law.

The solution is simple:

1. Protect the right of citizens to know how their representatives are voting by providing for a statutory roll call voting requirement.
2. In the meantime, change the rules in both the House and the Senate so that every bill, resolution and amendment with the force of law receives a recorded vote during the 119th General Assembly Session for 2011-2012.

However you define it, roll call voting is essential to accountability. With it, everything in the Legislature will become more transparent. Without it, little will change. The future of South Carolina depends on it.

Policy Report: Record Every Vote

Download the PDF.

The first step toward holding the legislative leadership accountable for their actions is to hold legislators accountable for their votes. Yet, the Senate and House combined voted on the record less than 25 percent of the time in both 2009 and 2010. By contrast, 45 other states require a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.

It is a basic principle of representative democracy that constituents have a right to know how legislators are voting. After all, one of the primary tasks of the legislator is to re-present, or be present for, individual voters. In this regard, legislators are expected to vote on behalf of their constituents. A legislator who fails to do so, who repeatedly votes in favor of his own whims and self-interests, is not properly representing his district—with the result (usually) being that he is not reelected.

In short, there is no defense for not recording votes. Not doing so undermines representative government and fosters a lack of accountability and transparency. In turn, these problems facilitate corruption, self-aggrandizement, and the abuse of power. And, as we have written in the two companion reports to this policy brief, the South Carolina Legislature is in need of reform precisely because a culture of political careerism and political privilege has taken hold in Columbia. Recording votes is a necessary first step to breaking this power monopoly.

Why record every vote?

It would seem no one is arguing the General Assembly should not record at least some votes—that is, perhaps, 25 percent of votes. Instead, the legislative leadership has suggested most votes are not “important enough” to be recorded. The implication is that it would be a waste of time to record these votes.

Yet this claim implies that much of what the General Assembly does—75 percent of its daily business—is not very important. Or, at least, not so important that citizens need to know how their representatives are voting on these issues. Indeed, as we have demonstrated in the companion piece to this report, Shorten South Carolina’s Legislative Session, the General Assembly does waste a great deal of time on trivial matters. In turn, this is why session should be shortened to 45 legislative days.

Moreover, the question of whether a bill is “important enough” to receive a recorded vote is subjective. Who decides whether a bill is important?Ultimately, the question can be used as an excuse not to record votes on controversial legislation. And this is what often happens in the General Assembly. During the 2009-2010 session legislators anonymously voted on the following matters:

• Targeted Tax Exemptions (H 3482): This legislation exempted air carriers operating a hub terminal facility in South Carolina from paying the property tax on personal property, including aircraft. (This bill passed the House and Senate on a voice vote, but the Senate did take a roll call vote to concur with the amended House version.)
• The Creation of New Agencies (S 1323): This legislation would have created an I-95 Corridor Authority empowered to carry out economic development and educational improvement activities in counties within 30 miles of I-95. The bill passed the Senate on a voice vote, but died in committee in the House.
• Corporate Subsidies (H 4343): This legislation sought to appropriate $15 million to create an Air Service Incentive and Development Fund to benefit airline carriers. The bill passed the House on a voice vote, but stalled in the Senate.
• Capital Construction Projects (S 700): This joint resolution authorized the University of South Carolina to build a new business school facility in the Innovista district. Construction was funded via bond revenue, thanks to another piece of legislation (H 3664) that also did not receive a recorded vote.
• Business Regulations and Fees (S 166): This joint resolution authorized the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop an outdoor advertising control pilot project aimed at eliminating what the Federal Highway Administration describes as nonconforming billboards. The resolution permits the DOT to charge application, annual, or other fees necessary to defray the administrative costs of implementing the program.

From the above examples, it is clear legislators routinely pass substantial legislation on an anonymous vote. For this reason, every bill and joint resolution, no matter how minor it may seem, should be given a recorded vote. (This excludes, of course, congratulatory resolutions and other measures that do not have the force of law.)

Simply put, every bill, resolution and amendment that would have the force of law should be given a recorded vote before it becomes law—for instance, on second reading. (Bills are read three times, with the second reading generally being the time for substantial debate.)

Percentage of Recorded Votes (Bills and Resolutions with Force of Law): 2009 to 2010

Why a rules change is not enough

In 2008, the Policy Council pushed for reforms that prompted rules changes in both the House and Senate that led to more recorded votes for the 118th General Assembly. But despite widespread public support for roll call voting, three-quarters of all votes remain off the record.

In addition, the rules changes made by the General Assembly do not have the force of law. Moreover, such procedural tinkering almost serves to reinforce the notion that the General Assembly is not obligated to record its votes. If roll call voting is necessary to a representative democracy, this duty should not be subject to the whims of the legislative leadership in its rulemaking capacity. Rather, it should be a right protected by statute, if not constitutional law.

Toward this end, the S.C. House passed a bill (H 3047) in 2010 that would have required more recorded votes. The Senate balked at the change, arguing that such a law would be an unconstitutional infringement of the chamber’s rule-making authority.

The measure passed by the House would have required a roll call vote on:

• Each section of the state budget on second reading
• Second reading of all bills and joint resolutions
• All amended bills and joint resolutions on third reading
• Amendments proposed by the opposite chamber
• Conference committee reports (necessary when House, Senate versions of a bill differ)

By contrast, current Senate rules only require a recorded vote on the following:

• The state budget as a whole
• Second reading of contested bills (one Senator may contest a bill)
• Second reading of bills authorizing expenditure of funds or with fiscal impact of $10,000
• Third reading of amended bills
• Conference committee reports

The Senate leadership’s argument that it would be unconstitutional to require recorded votes seems to be little more than a delay tactic. At the very least, the point is debatable, evinced by the fact that the House did not seem to think the legislation it passed was unconstitutional. In addition, constitutional scholars believe the law passed by the House would withstand a constitutional challenge. Writes John Simpkins, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law at the Charleston School of Law:

There is a compelling argument to be made that the goal sought by H 3047 is more substantive than procedural. While the Legislature may craft procedural rules for its daily operations, those rules may not infringe upon fundamental rights. H 3047 is arguably a law that would have an impact on the direct relationship between citizens and their elected representatives, not simply a rule governing how the Legislature is organized or conducts its daily business. However, even if the proposed legislation is considered to be procedural in nature, the plain language of the South Carolina Constitution demonstrates that the houses of the General Assembly do not have the exclusive authority to determine their procedural arrangements.

To summarize Simpkins, legislation requiring recorded votes cannot be reduced to a mere procedural issue, but touches upon a matter so important that it may be considered a fundamental right.

In the end, constitutional objections to roll call voting are purely academic, at best. The solution to any potential constitutional road block is simple:

1. Change the rules in each chamber to require roll call voting on every bill and resolution
2. Pass legislation requiring roll call voting on every bill and resolution

Roll call voting is essential to accountability

Any remaining objections to roll call voting may be easily dispensed with. The cost to record votes is trivial (and the House already has the technical means to do so). Moreover, by discouraging the passage of special-interest legislation, requiring recorded votes will reduce spending, which hit an all-time high in 2010. Likewise, modern technology can streamline the voting process to a matter of seconds.

But questions of cost and efficiency are secondary to the fact that South Carolina citizens have a right to know how their representatives are voting. However you define it, roll call voting is essential to accountability. With it, everything in the Legislature will become more transparent. Without it, nothing will change. The future of South Carolina depends on it.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

Download the PDF

As part of an ongoing analysis of state spending trends, this fact sheet looks at total state spending over the past 10 years. Taking this bird’s eye view of the budget illustrates state spending has consistently increased, regardless of economic conditions, inflation/population growth, or legislative/executive leadership.

Part I of this series looks at spending, in general, finding an increase of 44 percent over 10 years with an average increase of 4 percent per year.[1]

A closer analysis of the data reveals:

• Spending increased by 44.49 percent from FY2002 to FY2011.
• Spending increased by 4.14 percent annually over the past 10 years.
• Spending increased every year, except one (FY2010).
• The current $21 billion budget is the largest in state history.
• FY2005 saw the largest single-year hike in state spending, with appropriations increasing by 9.03 percent over FY2004.
• In the five-year period (FY2003-FY2008) prior to the beginning of the current recession, spending increased 34.56 percent, going up by more than $5 billion.

Budgetary Appropriations: FY2002-FY2011

Putting these findings into perspective will require adjusting spending for inflation and measuring spending increases in year 2000 dollars.

Part II of this series will accomplish that while also accounting for population growth.

In addition, it’s important to remember that the total budget is made up of three components: the General Fund, derived primarily from general tax revenue; Other Funds, derived primarily from fines/fees; and Federal Funds, which are federal tax dollars distributed to South Carolina from D.C.

Part III of this series will look at these three revenue sources in detail.

Here, however, we’re only attempting to point out that overall spending has steadily increased. Perhaps most interesting is that spending has consistently risen—regardless of gubernatorial or legislative leadership.

• Spending under Gov. Mark Sanford (R), who took office in Jan. 2003, increased by 37.10 percent: an average annual increase of 4.61 percent.
• Spending under Gov. James Hodges’ (D) last two years in office (FY2002-FY2004) increased by 5.39 percent: an average annual increase of 2.66 percent.
• Spending under Senate Pres. Pro Tem Glenn McConnell (R), elected as head of the Senate in Jan. 2001, has increased by 44.49 percent. This marks an average annual increase of 4.17 percent.
• Spending under House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R), elected speaker in June 2005, has increased by 17.27 percent. This is an average annual increase of 3.24 percent.

Again, these findings must be analyzed in light of their broader context. For instance, a slower rate of spending would have been expected during Gov. Hodges last two years in office because the country was emerging from a recession. Likewise, Gov. Sanford might be said to have very little control over state budget appropriations, given that the Legislature has frequently overridden his budget vetoes.

Still, the data shows one decisive point: spending continues to increase.

This sustained increase suggests two things:

1. The state’s current spending cap has not been effective
2. The next governor will be challenged to adopt innovative strategies to limit spending in any meaningful way

Both of these observations signify that reform must begin in the Legislature. Yet the Legislature has essentially proven that it can’t stop spending, that it is addicted to spending in both good times and bad.

The answer: an effective spending cap that limits spending to inflation growth. We’ll look more at that solution in Part II of this series.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright  © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

[1]The budget numbers used here are derived from the appropriated budgets ratified by the General Assembly. We use the recapitulation section from each budget. This number does not include reductions owing to gubernatorial vetoes or mid-year cuts by the Budget & Control Board. They do show legislative intent, however. Moreover, they provide a standardized means of tracking budget appropriations. As we have written elsewhere, actual spending usually, but not always, exceeds appropriations.

Why More Education Spending Equals More Teacher Furloughs

Unleashing Capitalism indicates how we could lift categorical funding restrictions on schools and school districts at the state level. As for federal funding, no chance.

Increased federal funding is not really about saving teachers' jobs, but seems to be more about funding pet federal programs. Consider the recent $26 billion "son of stimulus" package passed by the U.S. House on Tuesday.

TRAC: Who Are These Guys, Anyway?

They are individuals with considerable influence, even though no one elected them to make recommendations on how South Carolinians will be taxed.

They are the members of the Taxation Realignment Commission (TRAC).

TRAC was created in 2009 as "a temporary and independent commission comprised entirely of non-legislators" to "assess the effectiveness of the state's current tax structure and, in doing so, make recommendations to the General Assembly regarding necessary changes, if any, to that structure."

More precisely, these are "non-legislators" appointed by ... well, the Legislature.

This Week On The Nerve

The $14 Million Taxpayer Gift to Hollings

The opening of the Ernest F. Hollings Special Collections Library at USC has received ample media attention. It certainly didn't hurt when Vice President Joe Biden paraded into town for the dedication. But The Nerve's Senior Investigative Reporter Rick Brundrett uncovered another side of the celebration.

SLC Donors Spent Heavily on Lobbying

A reader's tip led to the latest story on The Nerve about the Southern Legislative Conference held recently in Charleston. Investigative Reporter Eric K. Ward, who first broke the SLC story, is bringing to light new information -- this time about the conference's generous donors' role as big-time lobbyists. Who are they? Ward spills the beans exclusively on The Nerve.

Nerve Gas: It's New, It's Hot and It's Here!

Who needs Broadway theater tickets when you have a more rowdy drama going on at the S.C. State House?

In the latest Nerve Gas video, Disasterpiece Theater: Roll Call Day, Sen. Jake Knotts is one of the main "stars" of the show. In the mood for comedy? What about tragedy? This Nerve Gas has it all!

In the News: S.C. Policy Council and The Nerve

The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat recently published a story broken by The Nerve's Investigative Reporter Kevin Dietrich. The story, concerning farm subsidies, also prompted a Times and Democrat editorial.

The Policy Council and The Nerve were also mentioned in The (Spartanburg) Herald-Journal, which published an editorial concerning another story by Dietrich regarding hunting licenses.

The Fort Mill Times also ran a story concerning school districts posting check registers online, an issue already covered on The Nerve and Policy Council websites.

Once again, we are making an impact! Please keep reading The Nerve and S.C. Policy Council websites to learn the latest concerning your elected officials and how their decisions affect you.

Download the PDF

In 2009 the General Assembly passed legislation (H 3352) requiring all school districts to post a transaction register online, as well as a copy of the district’s monthly credit card statement. Initially, school districts had until October 2009 to comply with the new law, but the deadline was extended to June 30, 2010, after some districts asked for more time.

As reported by The Nerve, 70 percent—61 out of 85 school districts—of the state’s school districts have posted their check registers online.

Countywide compliance, however, is not as good. Only 29 counties (out of 46) can boast that all of their school districts have posted the required spending data. Counties home to school districts that have yet to comply with the law include: Greenville, Lexington (District One and District Five), and Dorchester (District Four).

Even worse, many counties are still not making basic financial statements available online—for instance, by posting their county-level Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Currently, only 25 out of 46 of South Carolina’s counties have posted their most recent CAFR online. Moreover, only 7 counties have created online check registers.

Check out the table below to see how your county and school district are doing in terms of fiscal transparency:

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.