Newspaper asks, "Who is Howard Rich?"

A month ago, after Howie Rich appeared in a YouTube interview with South Carolina's Republican Party chairman, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal published an article that asked in its headline, "Who is Howard Rich?" It gave a simple answer to its own question: "He's one of the most popular figures in South Carolina politics. He's also one of the most despised."

What makes him popular and despised at the same time, the Herald said, was "his willingness to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars - in his own name, through a network of LLCs, through like-minded associates and through groups such as South Carolinians for Responsible Government, Conservatives in Action and the S.C. Club for Growth - in an effort to create a Legislature in his image."

It has made Rich "a political superstar," the paper said.

The issues he pushes make him public enemy No. 1 for some members of both parties. Causing the most heartburn is his desire to create a private school system funded by taxpayer dollars. But Rich's fan club includes some of South Carolina's top-ranking Republicans. State Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson fawned over him in a soft-hitting interview that was broadcast over the Internet. Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram wants to worship at his feet, or at least his hip pocket.

Leading the "Get Rich, Quick" club are top Democrats and public education supporters. Spartanburg County Democratic Party Chairman Glenn Lindman calls him a "disaster waiting to happen." State Rep. Mike Anthony, D-Union, the public information officer for Union County Schools, says Rich is pouring money into candidates who are willing to "sell their souls" to get elected.

The local Republican Party chairman, Rick Beltram, told the paper that when South Carolina elected Mark Sanford its governor, it opened the door to Howie Rich, since both have "strong libertarian leanings."

Rich "sailed under the radar for a time," the paper said. He gave thousands of dollars in contributions to candidates and committees through several companies that he owns in New York. His activity was discovered when someone found the same address attached to many different entities popping up on campaign disclosure forms. He used this system in 2006 to funnel more than $51,000 to the pro-voucher Republican candidate for superintendent of education. She was narrowly defeated.

This spring, the paper said, "he pumped at least $500,000 into primary races across the state - including six in Spartanburg County." In some cases, Rich gave the money directly to candidates, but in other cases he contributed to a group called South Carolinians for Responsible Government and the South Carolina Club for Growth. Those groups then paid for television ads and mail flyers.

No one knows how much money Howie Rich contributed to those front groups because "SCRG is not required to report where its funding comes from or where it spends its money because it is an 'advocacy group'."

Bob Walker, the veteran lawmaker from Landrum who had become chairman of the House Education Committee, was one of Howie Rich's targets.

While [Lee] Bright got the most money locally, Joey Millwood scored the biggest victory. Millwood unseated Rep. Bob Walker, the chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee. Millwood collected at least $50,000 from Rich and his associates, and also benefited from "advocacy" mailings by SCRG and Conservatives in Action.

Who is Howard Rich?

The local Democratic Party chairman predicted a quid pro quo relationship behind Howie Rich's contributions. "If Rich spent that much money to buy a seat, he says, he's going to expect something in return," he paper said.

"If you're that beholden to that man for that amount of money, you're representing his interests," Lindman said. "And his agenda is in conflict with what's in the best interest of Spartanburg County and the state."

It looks like Lindman is right. Both Bright and Millwood, the two candidates who won with Rich's funding, support Rich's school voucher plan.

Bright said he would support a voucher plan for students in failing schools. Millwood, like Rich, said he favors a tax credit. When asked how low-income students would benefit from a tax credit plan, Millwood said, "I'll have to get back to you." He said there were "a lot of student grant organizations out there," but when asked where they were he said he didn't know and that he'd never looked into it.

The Herald found another troubling pattern in Howie Rich's political activism:

Most of Rich's money showed up in the "dark period" between the date candidates had to file pre-election disclosures and the time voters went to the polls. That prevented voters from knowing who was receiving his funding, and how much they were getting. Rich said he wasn't trying to hide anything.

"I made donations based on when the support would have the most impact," Rich said. "No other reason."

The paper said that school vouchers are only one of Howie Rich's favorite issues. He has also poured money into state ballot initiatives for "spending limits, based on a formula of inflation plus population growth, and private property rights - particularly regulatory takings legislation."

But the Herald didn't name which states have been Rich's targets for political activity. It did say that Rich has accused opponents of his ideas and his contributions deceitful.

While Rich claims deceit on the part of opponents, it's his initiatives that have run into trouble with the law. In 2006 in Montana, for example, a district judge threw out ballot measures to cap state spending, enact a takings law and to make it easier to recall judges because of fraud by out-of-state, paid signature-gatherers, the newspaper The Missoulian reported. The state supreme court upheld the ruling.

The paper also added this warning to the voters of South Carolina who hope this sort of politics is temporary:

In his interview with Dawson, Rich said that he and his groups "weren't going anywhere."

"GOP hypocritical about money"

Mike Cubelo of Greenville sent an interesting and self-explanatory letter to the editor of the Greenville News in early August.

Funny how Republican politicians don't want any of that gay tourist money in South Carolina but they line up with their hands out for that hetero money from New York. Guess the S.C. GOP screens its funds for sexual orientation.

Republicans cite biblical principles to criticize gays but certainly don't care when a rich Yankee undermines ethical principles for political contributions. According to The Greenville News, there are 24 ways (via family and affiliated firms) that Howie Rich can get around the $3,000 individual contribution limit. Howie violated the spirit of that ethical principle to the tune of a million dollars. Guess if it ain't in the Bible, Christian conservative politicians grab what they can get.

Here we have a millionaire Southern governor taking money from a millionaire Yankee so that both can take money away from public school children. We probably have three or four school buses totaling a million miles on them but not one penny of Howie Rich 's million is going to replace them. However, the gay tourist money to increase our state revenue to replace these buses is just too sinful of a proposition for these God-fearing but greedy politicians.

As a parent of three children who have gone through our public school system, it was always a struggle to get our teachers what they needed for our kids. Some of these dedicated teachers and principals are gay and it must disgust them (certainly me) to see a million dollars used to demean them and make their jobs harder.

Mike Cubelo, Greenville
Letters
Greenville News, The (SC) - August 6, 2008

That tells the story, doesn't it?

Column details Howie Rich's attempt to buy SC

The State newspaper editor Cindi Ross Scoppe, whose columns have detailed Howie Rich's involvement in South Carolina, wrote at the end of July that she's often criticized for overlooking the contributions of other individuals and organizations from outside the state, and focusing so much on Rich.

If anyone wants to ban corporate and union donations, that's fine with me. A corporation or a union is not a human being, and doesn't have the First Amendment rights that the U.S. Supreme Court has ridiculously said gives actual people the right to spend all the money they please to influence our votes.

But there's a big difference between those donations and the Rich donations, in at least four ways.

** First, while some incumbents receive the bulk of their funding from corporate interests, it's rare that any one business is responsible for more than a sliver of a candidate's total donations; few evade the $1,000 donation limit. Moreover, there's a balancing function inherent in the hedge-your-bets approach of most corporations: A donation from AT&T, for instance, might be counterbalanced by one from rival Time Warner Cable.

And in those instances when a candidate is bankrolled by a single interest -- say trial lawyers -- that usually becomes a campaign issue. As it should. The Rich lackeys are clearly perturbed that his donations are an issue.

** Second, unlike Mr. Rich, who practically brags during his famous Katon Dawson interview that he has no financial, business or personal interests in our state, those other out-of-state interests do: They employ thousands of South Carolinians, pay S.C. income, sales and property taxes, run their businesses under the rules our Legislature passes.

I don't think they should have as much say as voters (and certainly not a greater say), but they do have a legitimate interest in how our state is governed, which cannot be said of Mr. Rich.

** Third, although Mr. Rich makes the point that he is obeying our laws, he goes to greater lengths than anyone I've seen to get around the intent of the law, by hiding his donations until it's too late for the information to do voters any good.

Donations that candidates receive during the final 20 days before an election don't have to be reported until the following quarter. That makes it pretty easy for donors to hide their involvement until after the voting. (It also means voters have no idea who's bankrolling a runoff campaign, since all runoff donations come in during this blackout period, but we can't really blame the candidates or the donors for that.)

According to blogger Ross Shealy (scbarbecue.blogspot.com), who has been scouring legislative candidates' campaign disclosure reports for Mr. Rich's fingerprints, 10 of the 37 recipients of Rich et al funding in last month's primaries didn't receive any of that money until the blackout period.

In some cases, this penchant for secrecy is almost comical. In Greenville's House District 22, Wendy Nanney took $18,000, 45 percent of her donations, from the Rich gang to unseat Rep. Gloria Haskins -- a fellow voucher supporter. Yet even with no threat of an attack on that issue, Mr. Rich still delayed all but $3,000 of the donations until after the final pre-election disclosure reports were due, so voters couldn't learn of them until after they voted.

** Finally, what makes the Howie Rich machine so different is the sheer volume of money he throws at candidates.

The Associated Press' Jim Davenport identified $577,000 in last month's primaries: $357,000 from Mr. Rich and 21 of his companies; $49,000 from other companies that share his Manhattan address; and another $171,000 from a handful of individuals and organizations affiliated with him.

That wouldn't be quite so bad -- though it's more than the big corporations that employ South Carolinians tend to give -- if it were equally distributed among the 35 recipients Mr. Davenport wrote about, or the 37 Mr. Shealy identified. It is not.

Mr. Shealy, who is as fixated on unmasking Mr. Rich as Mr. Rich is on imposing his vision on our state, tells me that 13 of the candidates received more than half their total donations from Mr. Rich and company; one received 97 percent. It wasn't uncommon for House candidates to receive $20,000 or more; one Senate candidate received $740,000.

And what did Mr. Rich get for his investments? Twenty-one of his candidates lost, including three incumbents. One dropped out. One was unopposed. And 14 won, but that included five incumbents who were shoe-ins for re-election. Which shows that this kind of money can't buy you everything -- but it can buy something, particularly when no one knows you're doing the purchasing.

What makes Howie Rich 's donations so different
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 29, 2008

And in the next day's edition, she continues her examination of Rich's influence by outlining in detail who collected Rich's contributions -- the ones that went directly to candidates' campaigns, and which don't include the funding of independent organizations like South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

I PROMISE you I'm more tired of writing about Howie Rich's campaign to buy our Legislature than you are of reading about it. But I figure if somebody's willing to put down more than half a million bucks in a single round of primary elections, just to make sure a Legislature in a state he has no ties to spends other people's tax dollars the way he sees fit, we owe him some ink.

Today we'll look at the candidates who took money from Mr. Rich, his 21 LLCs, other companies that share his Manhattan address and a handful of related people and organizations that tend to donate the same day he does.

My list is drawn from the research of blogger Ross Shealy (scbarbecue.blogspot.com), whose totals match the ones produced by The Associated Press. It shows how much each candidate received and how much of that came in during the 20-day blackout period before the primaries, when donations don't have to be reported until after the election. It doesn't include expenditures by third-party groups that receive their funding from Mr. Rich.

Some candidates face opposition in November, but here's the score so far: Three of the 11 incumbents Mr. Rich backed lost; two of his 14 challengers unseated incumbents; candidates he backed in open seats won seven of 12 races; and one of his candidates dropped out.

Rich incumbents re-elected:

** Sen. Mike Fair, Senate District 6, $6,000, all of it during the blackout period.

** Sen. Greg Ryberg, S.24, $7,000, all of it during the blackout period.

** Sen. Robert Ford, S.42, $8,000, half of it before the blackout period but none reported until July.

** Rep. Thad Viers, House District 68, $13,000, none of it reported until after the election.

** Rep. Kit Spires, H.96, $3,000 -- $2,000 of it during the blackout period.

** Rep. Curtis Brantley, H.122, $28,000 -- 65 percent of his donations -- all during the blackout period.

** Rep. Richard Chalk, H.123, $3,000, all during the blackout period.

Rich incumbents defeated:

** Rep. Bob Leach, H.21, $5,000.

** Rep. Ralph Davenport, H.37, $7,000. His disclosure report shows all his donations were made before the blackout period, but he did not report them as required by law until July.

** Rep. Heyward Hutson, H.94, $7,000 -- $3,000 of it during the blackout period.

Incumbent slayers:

** Wendy Nanney, H.22, $18,000 -- 45 percent of her donations --all but $3,000 during the blackout period. She beat fellow voucher supporter Gloria Haskins.

** Joey Millwood , H.38, $32,000 -- 65 percent of his donations. All but $3,000 was given on May 24 -- three days into the blackout period. He defeated House Education Chairman Bob Walker.

Rich open-seat winners:

** Dee Compton, S.10, $33,000, all during the blackout period.

** Lee Bright, S.12, $50,000, all during the blackout period.

** Deborah Long, H.45, $12,000 -- 40 percent of her donations. All but $3,000 of that came during the blackout period.

** Tim Scott, H.117, $16,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Tommy Stringer, H.18, $10,000, all but $3,000 during the blackout period.

** Daniel Hamilton, H.20, $5,000. He was unopposed.

Rich challengers defeated:

** Katrina Shealy, S.23, $74,000 -- 51 percent of her donations -- all but $5,000 during the blackout period.

** Levone Graves, S.30, $5,000, all but $1,000 during the blackout period, which covered the runoff.

** Raymond Russell, H.31, $21,000 -- 76 percent of his donations -- all on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Ken Roach, H.34, $16,000 -- 69 percent of his donations. All of it was given on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Roger Nutt, H.35, $20,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Annie McDaniel, H.41, $21,000 -- 85 percent of her donations -- all during the blackout period, on the day of the primary.

** Ed Rumsey, H.2, $17,000 -- 65 percent of his donations -- $14,000 during the blackout period.

** Trey Whitehurst, H.3, $18,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Kyle Boyd, H.48, $2,000.

** Ennis Bryant, H.50, $4,000 -- 74 percent of his donations -- all during the blackout period.

** Naim Salahudeen, H.54, $5,000 -- 61 percent of his donations -- none reported before the election.

** Zina Manning, H.55, $8,000 -- 96 percent of her donations -- all during the blackout period. (If she had defeated Rep. Jackie Hayes, this would have made a great trivia question: What candidate was swept into office by the video poker barons because the incumbent opposed them and then out by the voucher barons because he opposed them?)

** Priscilla Robinson, H.66, $14,000, all but $2,000 on the first day of the blackout period. She received another $4,000 from donors with a New York address that Mr. Shealy considered suspicious but whose affiliations he has not confirmed.

** Sheri Few, H.79, $26,000 -- 51 percent of her donations. Half of it came in during the blackout period.

** Scott Singer, H.81, $21,000, all during the blackout period. (The Aiken Standard reports that he returned all but $3,000 after the election.)

** James Whitehead, H.83, $11,000 -- 98 percent of his donations -- all on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Wendell Gilliard, H.111, $5,000, all of it during the blackout period, on the day after the primary.

** Joseph Bustos, H.112, $27,000 -- 55 percent of his donations -- all but $3,000 during the blackout period.

Finally, Rep. Joe Mahaffey, H.36, received $4,000 on Feb. 29 and dropped his re-election bid that same day, making way for voucher backer and former Rep. Rita Allison to take back her seat.

The Who's Who list of Howie Rich friends and foes
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 30, 2008

Counting up the number of House and Senate races that Howie Rich sought to influence, it's 37 out of the South Carolina General Assembly's 170 total seats. If he'd been completely successful, Rich would hold sway over nearly one-quarter of a state's legislature -- a state where he can't cast a single vote.

S. Carolina, S. Dakota groups funded similarly

At the same time that campaign finance reports across South Carolina were revealing the heavy hand of New York millionaire Howie Rich, reports were filed in South Dakota with similar features: One organization, the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, contributed more than $195,000 to a committee called South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government, which uses the money to support a ballot measure "restricting individuals' right to contribute to campaign and to lobby." Neither group, SDCAC or SDOCG, reveals who supplies its funding.

The two big fights are over Initiated Measure 11, which would ban most abortions in South Dakota; and Initiated Measure 10, which would place a multitude of additional restrictions on individuals' rights to contribute to campaigns and to lobby, and on government involvement in campaigns and lobbying.

The reports cover the period from late May through early July and must be filed with the state elections office.
...
Open and clean government : The group officially supporting Measure 10, South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government , reported receiving 13 contributions between late May and early July totaling $195,699, with 11 from individuals ranging from $10 (six) to $100 (three) and two from its main financial supporter, the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, in the amounts of $15,000 and $180,000.

The Open and Clean committee reported spending $198,551 during the same period. The major expense was $182,892 for advertising.

* No on 10, the Pierre-based group opposing the measure, reported receiving $1,345 in donations less than $100 from unnamed individuals and spent $45 on supplies. The anti-10 committee started the period with just $2,180 in the bank and ended with $3,479 cash on hand.
...
Neither the South Dakota Conservative Action Council nor American Entrepreneurs for Securities Reform has revealed the sources of funding being passed along to the ballot committees.

CAMPAIGN CASH FLOWING - ABORTION BAN, 'OPEN AND CLEAN' INITIATIVES ATTRACTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY
Aberdeen American News (SD) - July 26, 2008

But the media in South Carolina continues to publish what it learns about the New York millionaire.

A wealthy New York developer pushing a school vouchers agenda used an assortment of companies to pump tens of thousands of dollars into a handful of primary campaigns for legislative seats in Greenville and Spartanburg counties, South Carolina and New York State records show.

Howard S. Rich, through at least nine firms and several associates, contributed at least $40,000 to eight Upstate Republican primary candidates, five of whom won nominations and face no general election opposition. Statewide, the same individuals and businesses donated $179,000 to Republican primary candidates and a scattering of Democrats.

The nine firms are listed on New York State Secretary of State's database of corporations and computerized records of business entities, and their donations appear on South Carolina candidates' filings with the state Ethics Commission. The New York records contain Rich's name, that of his wife, Andrea, or his business address of 73 Spring St.

Rich couldn't be reached for comment.

Fifteen other firms that have no named affiliation with Rich but share the same 73 Spring St., Suites 408 and 507 addresses, donated to South Carolina candidates and didn't show up on the New York database. Those donations totaled $70,000 to the six Greenville-Spartanburg candidates and totaled $166,000 statewide.

New Yorker bankrolled Upstate races
Greenville News, The (SC) - July 27, 2008

The Greenville News article goes on to estimate that Rich contributed up to $1 million in the South Carolina primaries of 2006 and 2008, including $10,000 to Joey Millwood, the 28-year-old sports writer who defeated the eight-term chairman of the House Education Committee.

State law limits donations to General Assembly candidates to $1,000 for each primary, runoff and general election, a maximum of $3,000 per individual or business entity.

Rich discussed his goals and extensive use of his personal wealth to achieve them in a videotaped interview conducted by Dawson, the state Republican Party chairman, and recently posted on Youtube.com. The interview took place three weeks ago in the den of Dawson's Columbia home. It had been arranged during a 2007 meeting between the two in New York, Dawson told The Greenville News.

A disclaimer on the video says it was paid for by South Carolina Citizens for Responsible Government, a pro-voucher organization whose critics say is partially funded by Rich, although the group isn't required to make public its donors.
...
Turning to candidates and issues he has bankrolled in a number of states, Rich describes himself as "a political person" with two main interests: term limits for politicians and "individual freedom, the rights of parents versus big government."
...
Most of the Rich donations were made after the pre-primary campaign finance reports were filed. They weren't made public until after the primary election

Howie Rich and his money appear in SC

In late July, South Carolina blogger Ross Shealy churned out a trove of data showing Howie Rich's involvement in 18 different House races in the state -- a state where Rich has never lived -- especially donating large sums of money during a 20-day "blackout period" where it could be shielded from the public until after the election.

Although candidates are required by law to keep their books up-to-date and "open to public inspection upon request" during the entire quarter in which a vote is held, the last pre-election report they file with the state doesn't have to include any donations made during the final 20 days before the election. The practical result is that if a donor wants to hide his support for a candidate until after the vote, he can almost certainly do that.

That is precisely what the would-be puppet-master of our state Legislature, libertarian millionaire investor Howie Rich , has done. Blogger Ross Shealy has so far found 18 candidates in the June primary who received tens of thousands of dollars each during that blackout period from Mr. Rich, his various business interests and the same small group of like-minded associates. In some cases, a handful of donations were made early enough to be included in the pre-election reports, but the money spigot was turned wide open once it was safe from prying eyes. In seven races, there was no trace of such money in the pre-election reports.

Among the findings of Mr. Shealy, whose primary purpose in life seems to be exposing the activities of Mr. Rich and others who seek to divert public money to private schools:

** Katrina Shealy, who lost to Sen. Jake Knotts, received $5,000 from Rich et al. that she had to report on her May campaign disclosure report. During the blackout period, she received another $69,000.

** Lee Bright, who defeated Rep. Scott Talley for an open Senate seat in Spartanburg County, received $50,000 -- all during the blackout period.

** Ken Roach, who lost a race for Mr. Talley's House seat, received $16,000 -- 69 percent of his total contributions -- all during the blackout period.

Asking candidates to do nothing more than make their donation records available for public inspection during the final days of a campaign could be justified back when the law was passed, in the pre-Internet era. It no longer can be; nor should anyone try.

As Mr. Rich has reminded us (we first saw such shenanigans back when the video poker barons were the ones trying to intimidate our Legislature into submission), the law allows candidates to mislead voters. In some cases, the recipients of his largess had been accused during the blackout period of being beholden to him, and they claimed they had received little or no money from New York. In other cases, no one even thought to ask, because the candidates had been trained either to avoid talking about school "choice" or else to be vague about it.

Sunshine needed on last-minute campaign giving
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 20, 2008

Then, out of the blue, Howie Rich himself appeared in a series of YouTube videos, being interviewed by South Carolina Republican Party chairman Katon Dawson, in Dawson's own home in Columbia. Dawson said that Rich made the trip to South Carolina just for this interview.

The State newspaper editor Cindi Ross Scoppe wrote this about the YouTube interviews:

WE SAID Howie Rich was an outsider with no interest in our state, pumping in massive amounts of money to try to control our Legislature; his supporters bristled. We said he was trying to use South Carolina as a launching pad to spread his narrow ideological view across the country; they balked. We said he had a single-minded fixation on what he calls "school choice" they objected.

And now, in an extraordinary interview with the chairman of the state Republican Party, the man who wants to give parents who will send their kids to private schools our tax dollars, or else give them a pass on paying taxes themselves, has confirmed pretty much everything I and other critics ever said about him.

Some question the propriety of Katon Dawson providing such a fawning platform ("So you felt it was your duty as an American to be involved in these issues, not just in South Carolina but in the other states?") for a man whose main focus for five years has been unseating Republican state legislators. I'll leave that for Republicans to fight out; I'm grateful to Mr. Dawson.

No matter how friendly a questioner he was, Mr. Dawson's interview provides the fullest look South Carolina voters have had at our Legislature's would-be puppetmaster, and in so doing washes away any hint of deniability of his intentions. Here's a little of what we learn from Mr. Rich:

** He has no ties to our state.

"Here in South Carolina," he said, "I own no property, I have no businesses down here, so there's no real monetary benefit." This is his proof that his motivations are pure; after all, what's more important than making money? If that's not what you're trying to do, you must be Mother Theresa.

Try to imagine this: George Soros or some other bete noire of the left targets our legislators, explaining that he has no financial interest, but merely wants to bring his enlightened world view to power in our state -- and state Republicans smile with approval.

** He's a one-issue guy in South Carolina, and his interest in that issue extends across the nation. Mr. Rich said he has long been interested in lowering taxes, shrinking government and preserving "personal freedom," but these days he's focused on public school "choice" and term limits.

"I'm involved in school choice in South Carolina," he said, "and I've been involved all across the country in that issue, also since as early as 1990. We're talking Washington state, California, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado and several other states."

This is significant because his sycophants insist that the agenda they push with his money is much larger than one issue. They say this to deny charges that their attacks on issues other than school "choice" are part of a bait-and-switch campaign. Their patron begs to differ.

** He'd love to use South Carolina as a launching pad. When Mr. Dawson asked whether he though a victory here could be "a model for the rest of the nation," Mr. Rich excitedly said he did, and then launched into a recap of recent successes in Florida and Georgia. "So we have a whole Southeastern strategy so to speak, with Florida, Georgia and hopefully South Carolina."

** We're stuck with him. "I am not going away, and my groups are not going away," he said, in the one part of the interview that has been widely reported. "If we get a bill, a good bill, in 2009, I'm sure Governor Sanford will sign it. That'll be terrific. If not, it could be 2010, 2011 or 2015."

** He believes that if you oppose his ideas, you must be on the take; you could not possibly just believe he's wrong. He explained to Mr. Dawson that it is impossible for his opponents to understand his altruistic motivations "because the other side is in it for one thing -- taxpayer dollars. They love it every year when the Legislature gives them more money for what they call 'education.'"

** He believes that private schools are always and inherently superior to public schools. It's not even an assertion on his part; it's an article of faith. "And these are going to be much better schools," he said of those private schools in our state that would educate "one child, ten kids, a thousand children, ten thousand children" at taxpayer expense. He said it much the way you might say, "and it's pleasant out today."

** He grades on a curve. Public schools may be irredeemable by definition, but the governor whose biggest accomplishment in six years has been to bring the House and Senate together in opposition to pretty much every one of his initiatives "has been just terrific" in the area of lower taxes and spending.

** He believes there should be no restrictions on his efforts to purchase himself a friendly little Southern Legislature. "This is money that I earned honestly, primarily in the real estate business," he said, "and I believe since it's my money, I can do with it as I choose. And if I want to do something I strongly believe in ... I should be allowed to do that. Everything I've done is 100 percent legal."

He's right: It is legal, although there's good reason to question whether his shell-game approach -- giving the $1,000 legal maximum contribution to each chosen candidate not only from his personal account but also from a network of paper companies with obscure names, even before enlisting his cronies across the nation to do likewise -- should be.

But in this country, even those of us who don't have the money to evade the intent of the campaign donation law are allowed to have our own opinion about whether legislators should be beholden to someone with views such as these. And if we don't think they should -- and if we actually live in South Carolina -- we get to say so at the polls.

Howie Rich , in his own words
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 24, 2008

Petitioner tries to oppose Howie Rich's candidate

For a short time, it appeared that Howie Rich's candidate in the South Carolina House race might have an independent opponent, and Howie Rich was the reason.

Former Landrum Mayor Doug Brannon has about 24 hours to finish collecting enough signatures to be on the November ballot as a candidate for the state House of Representatives. "The residents of House District 38 need a strong, vocal representative that isn't pulled by out-of-state money or some other power," Brannon said.

According to his pre-election campaign disclosure form, Millwood received about three-quarters of the money he had raised so far - $4,150 - from New York donors affiliated with Libertarian Howard Rich. Rich and his associates have supported groups and individuals in South Carolina promoting school choice, specifically vouchers, though Millwood said he would prefer tax credits for parents who send their children to private school over a voucher system.

Millwood had not filed his second-quarter disclosure statement as of Sunday. But he said he would continue working hard toward November as he did the months leading up to the June primary.
...
Brannon said he would not accept contributions from out-of-state special interests.

Brannon pushing petition deadline to join House District 38 race
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - July 14, 2008

Millwood's response to the potential challenge from Brannon was expected: "I'm the Republican nominee," he said.

Another hurdle Brannon faces is the funding machine built by New York Libertarian Howard Rich. As of May 23 - the deadline for candidates to file their pre-election campaign disclosure forms with the state - Millwood had raised only $3,650 this quarter, and $3,000 of that was from associates of Rich.

Since then, Millwood received an additional $47,427.18 in campaign donations. Of that, $45,600, or more than 96 percent, came from individuals and entities affiliated with Rich and the S.C. Club for Growth - and about half of that came May 24, the beginning of the window when candidates would not have to disclose donors until after the election.
...
None of that financial information includes the thousands of dollars pumped into the House District 38 primary by South Carolinians for Responsible Government, or SCRG, and Conservatives in Action, in the form of campaign literature. The money trail for those groups also leads back to Rich, and the groups have successfully navigated loopholes in state law by calling campaign mailers "education pieces."
...
Whether tax dollars should be used to support private school education will be a key issue in this race. It's an issue championed by Rich and his groups, and ousting Walker was seen as a victory for those who support using tax dollars to help cover costs for parents who send their children to private schools.

Brannon turns in petitions - House District 38: If signatures check out, he'll appear on Nov. 4 ballot
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - July 16, 2008

But Brannon's petition effort fell short, leaving Howie Rich's candidate to run against an unknown Democrat in the general election.

"The New York money doesn't give a damn"

New York millionaire Howie Rich's success in South Carolina's Republican primaries likely means that his influence will grow, not end, in that state, according to one newspaper. The Spartanburg Herald-Journal asked on June 30, "Think you've heard the last of 'out-of-state special interests?' No chance."

It quoted Governor Mark Sanford's spokesman saying that with each election, Sanford has gotten closer to his goals. Because his success was fueled with out-of-state funds from Howie Rich through interest groups, it's just as fair to say that Rich has gotten closer to his goals, too. This new influence, however, seems to be "splitting the party."

Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer... says each year, Sanford gets closer to the "magic number" of legislators needed to sustain vetoes and push legislation forward.
...
But conservatives are divided on school choice and school consolidation, issues close to Sanford's heart.
...
Meanwhile, several groups supporting school choice poured tens of thousands of dollars into Spartanburg legislative races this year - though they spent more time talking about spending and other issues.

Those groups, like South Carolinians for Responsible Government, are tied to New York millionaire Howard Rich. The S.C. Club for Growth, Conservatives in Action and ReformSC are in the same boat.

"Two years ago, they might have scored a victory or two. This time, they really picked up some seats," [retired House Speaker Pro Tem Doug] Smith said. "I guess they've got the wind behind their sails right now. Any time that happens, they're not just going to drop the sail. They're going to keep the boat moving. Good, bad, right or wrong."

Many candidates on the receiving end of SCRG attacks - and even a few who benefited from them - pledged to support laws that would require such groups to disclose their financial information the same as other entities that affect elections. Sawyer said the governor's office welcomes a transparency bill, as long as it is across the board and part of a larger ethics reform package.

In the meantime, many of the same attacks used against groups like SCRG in the primary season will be repeated this fall.

"Our effort goes to our candidates and maintaining the influence of Spartanburg County in the state Legislature, which the Republicans wiped out this time," [Democratic Party chairman Glenn] Lindman said. "And a lot of those people were good people - someone you could work with regardless of what side of the aisle they were on. We gave up on a tremendous amount of influence in the primary. Thankfully, it was mostly on the Republican side. But it's still bad for the county. The New York money doesn't give a damn about Spartanburg's influence. And if South Carolina's for sale, then Mark Sanford is the broker in charge."
...
Sawyer offered this piece of advice: "Just don't forget who put you there and don't forget why you're there."

Elections key to Spartanburg influence - Sanford's agenda: Republican victories in fall would bolster governor's support; school choice a vital issue
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 30, 2008

In that article, the retired House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith warned that what Rich's influence had accomplished in his county would likely be repeated elsewhere in the state.

"That means that some areas of the state might be behind us in timing, that the exact same thing can happen there that happened in Spartanburg," he said. "It's coming."

Columnist: "Howie Rich cabal" seeks to dismantle government

Columnist Cindi Ross Scoppe, who had previously written about an alleged "hit list" in The State newspaper, explained how her editorial board arrived at its endorsements for candidates in a column on June 20. In it, she identified an element that weighed heavily in the paper's thought process: the influence of "New York millionaire Howard Rich, his generous fellow travelers scattered across the country and the secretive organizations they bankroll inside our state," and his agenda to "buy our Legislature" and "dismantle government."

As she described it, that element has proven to be a decisive factor.

As I explained to a Senate candidate this spring, often we literally make a list of all the reasons to endorse each candidate and all the reasons not to, and pick the one with the most positives and fewest negatives. Obviously, some items carry more weight than others: Supporting comprehensive tax reform is more important than which particular taxes you want to raise or lower; you'll lose more points for favoring government by referendum than for wanting to keep a particular agency out of the governor's hands. Still, it's the sum of all those pluses and minuses that determines our choice.

In recent years, though, it has become progressively more difficult to maintain this "whole candidate" approach, thanks to a new force in state politics -- New York millionaire Howard Rich, his generous fellow travelers scattered across the country and the secretive organizations they bankroll inside our state.

The problem with these campaign carpetbaggers isn't merely that they're exaggerating the shortcomings of our public schools in order to advance the bankrupt idea of diverting tax money to private schools. It's that this is just the first step in an effort to dismantle government. It's that they try to hide their objectives (and identities), finding or even fabricating other reasons to attack an incumbent, taking care not to mention vouchers. It's that they force us to pick a team -- their team or not their team.

And because the one non-negotiable requirement for being on their team is supporting vouchers and tax credits, they put those of us who oppose their team in the position of looking like we're the ones fixated on vouchers.

Fortunately, my colleagues and I haven't gotten to the point where we liked everything about a candidate except his support for vouchers or tax credits. Usually, the private "choice" supporters have had a lot of other objectionable qualities: Many have signed the no-new-taxes pledge -- not a disqualifier alone, but a big red mark in the negative category; many have memorized the governor's tax talking points -- again, not a disqualifier by itself.

But we've come uncomfortably close to that, and nowhere more than in our endorsement of Sen. Jake Knotts. There's enough objectionable about him -- and enough to like about his challenger in Tuesday's runoff, Katrina Shealy -- that reasonable people have concluded that we've become a one-issue editorial board.

Like everything else related to the Howie Rich cabal, that is a distortion of reality.

Before the out-of-state voucher money started flowing into our state, I didn't have strong feelings about vouchers. I didn't see any way they would do any good systematically, but I didn't consider them terribly dangerous -- if they were rolled out the way Mr. Sanford proposed in his first campaign, as a small experiment, maybe in a couple of districts, and going only to poor kids. But that was never proposed. Once the money spigot was turned on, the agenda changed to match the goals of the patrons: Now the plan was to provide all kids with vouchers or, worse still if you claim to want to help poor kids, tax credits, which won't even help half the state's population because they don't pay enough in state income taxes to benefit.

Just as our opposition to video poker had less to do with gambling than with the attempt by video poker barons to control our state government, our objection to the voucher candidates has less to do with vouchers than with their affiliations.

You see, when you vote for Ms. Shealy or any of the other candidates who wouldn't have a prayer without Mr. Rich's money, you're not just voting for that candidate. You're voting for that team. And even the damage that a full-throttle voucher/tax credit program could do to our state fades to insignificance alongside the damage that would be done if Mr. Rich's dream team is able to buy our Legislature.

Outside money elevates one issue above others, and it's not vouchers
State, The (Columbia, SC) - June 20, 2008

Agenda-driven groups leave "disaster area"

The influence of out-of-state interests on the South Carolina primary was felt instantly in Spartanburg County, where veteran lawmaker Bob Walker was one of a few senior lawmakers turned out of office thanks to mail and phone campaigns paid for by out-of-staters. One lawmakers called the Spartanburg County legislative delegation, once one of the most experienced and powerful delegations in the state, a "disaster area."

State Rep. Harold Mitchell stood in the middle of election central Tuesday night, staring at the scoreboard and surveying the damage to the Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation.

Bob Walker, chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee: Gone, voted out in favor of 28-year-old Joey Millwood, a journalist with no political experience. Ralph Davenport, holder of a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee: Gone, voted out over a widely criticized school consolidation plan that most likely never would have seen the light of day.

Jim Ritchie, Senate majority whip: Scratching and clawing just to make a runoff against Shane Martin for the District 13 seat. Scott Talley and his eight years of experience in the House: Headed for a runoff against Lee Bright for the Senate District 12 seat. Throw in the retirement of House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, and it didn't take Mitchell long to declare the delegation a disaster area.
...
"As I looked at it, from a leverage standpoint, it didn't take long to figure out where we were," said Mitchell, a Democrat who, with three years' experience, is now the third-ranking member of the House delegation behind Lanny Littlejohn (a Republican with 20 years of service) and Mike Anthony (a Democrat with six years in office who represents Union County and a piece of Spartanburg County).
...
"Like the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it," Smith said. "It will take decades for Spartanburg County to recover from this."

Smith, who retired after 16 years in the House, entered the Legislature in 1992 as a member of the minority party. When the Republicans took over two years later, some very fresh faces found themselves in key positions. This crop of newcomers won't have that luxury, Smith said. There are Republicans in front of them who have waited years for a spot on Ways and Means or a committee chairmanship.
...
Mitchell said in some cases there was another ingredient at work. He said the money pumped in by the "Gangs of New York" - a movie title he said aptly describes South Carolinians for Responsible Government, Conservatives in Action and the S.C. Club for Growth - took a toll in some races, including Walker's. Joey Millwood, a candidate who supports using taxpayer money for private schools, was bankrolled by such groups tied to voucher maven and New York millionaire Howard Rich.

"They tried to influence our judicial races last year, but they didn't succeed," Mitchell said... "But they certainly affected the General Assembly races this year, and now they've gotten several steps closer to their plan for school vouchers."

Incumbents out, county loses clout - Legislative delegation: Area's influence declines as veterans leave arena
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 15, 2008

Editors of the local newspaper reached the same conclusion.

When the next legislative session starts in January, Spartanburg County will have much less influence in the General Assembly. Part of this loss is because Smith, a leader in the House, decided not to run for re-election. The county also lost the chairmanship of the House Education and Public Works Committee when Joey Millwood defeated Rep. Bob Walker. And Spartanburg lost a seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee when Steve Parker defeated Rep. Ralph Davenport.

... If Shane Martin defeats Sen. Jim Ritchie in next week's runoff, the county would take a similar hit in its power in the Senate. Two of the county's three seats would be held by freshmen.

... Elections should be open. The voters should be able to choose from any candidates who choose to run. Incumbents should have to run on their record of accomplishments. They should not feel entitled to hold their seats as long as they want.

But they also shouldn't have to fight outside groups channeling large amounts of money into their races from sources unknown. That was a factor in some of these races. Well-financed groups - pursuing their own agenda and unwilling to reveal where their money comes from - pushed several candidates, including Millwood.

Candidates should be able to know who they're fighting, and voters should be able to know who is financing the political messages they get in their mailboxes.

Rep. Harold Mitchell is correct when he says the delegation will have to work together to overcome its loss of influence. It should start by insisting that the General Assembly pass a law that would force independent groups that try to influence elections to disclose their finances.

Loss of power - Primary elections cost Spartanburg its measure of clout in Columbia
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 17, 2008

Meanwhile, the automatic recount in Bob's race against Joey Millwood gave the same result.

A recount of votes for the State House District 38 on Monday concluded Joey Millwood has unseated eight-term state Rep. Bob Walker by 19 votes in what many considered to be the most stunning upset in last week's GOP primary. Millwood, a 28-year-old journalist, scored 1,539 votes to Walker's 1,520, according to the official count.

Walker has until Monday to lodge a protest with the state GOP Executive Committee. He said he still was undecided on whether to pursue an appeal.

"I will not make any judgment," Walker said. "I think my experience, knowledge and service will be missed. I have no regrets as far as what I tried to accomplish over the years."

Recount confirms Millwood's victory over Walker
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 17, 2008

And then, he decided not to appeal at all.

State Rep. Bob Walker said Wednesday he will not file a protest in the House District 38 Republican primary. Newcomer Joey Millwood scored a 19-vote victory over Walker in the June 10 primary. A mandatory recount on Monday affirmed the victory. Walker, the chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee, was seeking a ninth term. He said he examined questions about some absentee and provisional ballots, but in the end he "just didn't see the numbers" to proceed.

Walker said he would continue to serve the district until his term expires in December. After that, he said, his future is "in the hands of the good Lord."

Millwood, sports editor of the Tryon Daily Bulletin, faces Democrat Mark Chambers in the general election in November.

Walker won't protest vote ousting him after 8 terms
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 19, 2008

Out-of-state money defeats Bob Walker

Whether or not there was a "hit list," voters in the South Carolina primary responded to the negative advertising sponsored by out-of-state interests. Political newcomer Joey Millwood, the 28-year-old sportswriter for a newspaper on the North Carolina side of the Carolina border, unseated Bob Walker.

Joey Millwood unseated eight-term state Rep. Bob Walker by 19 votes Tuesday in what many considered a stunning upset in the state House District 38 GOP primary. Millwood, a 28-year-old journalist, garnered 1,539 votes to Walker's 1,520 in the unofficial count. His biggest victory came in the Bowen precinct, where he held a 235 to 176 edge.
...
Walker, 65, the chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee, said late Tuesday that he was unwilling to comment specifically on the outcome until the numbers were official.

However, "I've said all along, regardless of what happens in the end, this seat belongs to the people and I respect what the people say," he said. "I have enjoyed serving as a legislator, whether it comes out to my benefit or not. I have tried to serve the people with honesty and integrity. Never have I tried to get elected or re-elected by false and inaccurate statements, and I will live by my record.
...
Millwood's campaign was predicated on conservative principles, and he said the results Tuesday showed the people responded.
...
Millwood's top priority is to cut state spending, and he also supports tax credits to parents who choose to send their children to private schools.

Millwood scores 19-vote primary upset over Walker
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 11, 2008

Millwood's own newspaper covered the news and seemed to be as surprised as everyone else.

Political newcomer Joey Millwood edged incumbent Bob Walker by 19 votes in the Republican primary for the House seat, capturing 50.31 percent of the vote. Millwood received 1,539 votes, while Walker received 1,520.
...
Walker, 65, has served eight terms in the S.C. House after first getting elected in 1993. He most recently has served in a significant leadership position as chairman of the Education and Public Works Committee.

Millwood edges incumbent Walker in S.C. House race
Tryon Daily Bulletin, The (NC) - June 11, 2008

Because of the margin of victory, a recount would be automatic but the bigger question was whether or not Bob would contest the results.

The county board of elections will meet at 11 a.m. today to certify the results of Tuesday's voting. The board will then conduct a recount in the House District 38 race, where newcomer Joey Millwood stunned eight-term incumbent Bob Walker by 19 votes. The recount is mandated by law because Millwood did not win by a minimum of 1 percent of the vote.

Pending the outcome of the recount, either side would have until 1 p.m. Monday to file an appeal. Walker said he is undecided as to whether that's an avenue he'll explore. "We'll look at what is presented to us tomorrow and make our decision," he said.

Runoff candidates won't get a breather - June 24 vote: Republicans to decide 2 nominees for state Senate, 1 council seat
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 12, 2008

Whether or not the governor initiated a "hit list" with out-of-state financing, he "declared victory."

The S.C. Club for Growth declared victory Tuesday night, and Sanford followed Wednesday.
...
In total, candidates Sanford publicly supported went 2-for-4 against incumbents. Sanford said eight incumbent losses -- some he had nothing to do with -- were a sign voters wanted change.

As for the third-party groups, they won some and lost some.

Most notably is Rep. Bob Walker's loss in Spartanburg County to newcomer Joey Millwood.
...
But South Carolinians for Responsible Growth and the S.C. Club for Growth failed to defeat a number of targeted Upstate lawmakers, including Sandifer, B.R. Skelton and Keith Kelly. Those groups also failed to capture a number of open seats.

In short, Sanford might pick up one or two new House members and three or four Senate votes. A handful of runoffs and general election races could change that slightly in either direction.

But S.C. Club for Growth executive director Matt Moore said the goal was to elect a veto-backing bloc, and Tuesday's election results might do little to shift the Legislature in that direction during Sanford's final two years.

Sanford wins some, loses others in election
State, The (Columbia, SC) - June 12, 2008

Out-of-state funds pursue change

As the June 9 primary approached in South Carolina, "outside groups" were seen to "ratchet up the heat" with mail and advertisements. What seemed to tie many of them together was a steady stream of funding coming from outside the state, a "hit list" that may or may not have been adopted or promoted by the governor's office, and front groups that pay for the political ads but aren't obligated to reveal their donors.

Office-seekers are having their past and present business practices criticized. Political newcomers are being attacked as puppets of special interest groups. And many incumbents (and their consultants) say they're fighting hidden agendas to radically alter the education system in South Carolina and a concentrated effort to oust them, an effort tied to the Governor's Office.
...
South Carolinians for Responsible Government, or SCRG, has issued several cookie-cutter mailers attacking incumbent Reps. Keith Kelly and Bob Walker. Kelly faces engineer Roger Nutt in House District 35. Walker faces journalist Joey Millwood in House District 38. SCRG, a group partially funded by New York millionaire Howard Rich, is tied to several like-minded groups, like the S.C. Club for Growth and Conservatives in Action.

"The usual suspects seem to be behind every one of these attacks," consultant Terry Sullivan said. "Josh Gross is infamous for untrue and misleading attacks. Club for Growth has repeatedly done it. It's not about the issues for a lot of these groups, it's about personalities and petty politics."
...
His firm was hired by the new group "South Carolinians for Truth," headed by outgoing Rep. Bill Cotty, R-Columbia, to fight back - a fight that has included automated calls attacking Kelly's challenger, Roger Nutt, and Forrester's opponent, Ken Roach. Critics, including those aligned with SCRG, say the calls aren't legal.
...
"Whenever you hear the pig squeal, you know you're getting its attention," Cotty said. "We have an immigration problem in South Carolina that the bill we passed didn't handle: The immigration of out-of-state dollars by rich special interests who are trying to buy our state election by election, issue by issue, without revealing who they really are, where they're really from and what they're really about."
...
Nutt also says it's misleading for critics to categorize him as a puppet of "out-of-state interests" when a relatively small amount of his direct campaign contributions come from people affiliated with Rich, while not categorizing his opponent, Kelly, as a puppet for receiving a relatively large percentage of contributions from political action committees and attorneys.

Campaign turns nasty - Primary is Tuesday: Outside groups ratchet up the heat
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - June 5, 2008

And was there a "hit list," or wasn't there? A newspaper reported rumors of one, and finally published what was reported to be one, but Governor Mark Sanford's office denied its involvement in one.

Kelly, Walker, Cotty and others were on a long-rumored hit list that Gov. Mark Sanford was said to be targeting this election cycle. Its existence was regarded as an urban legend, though such a list eventually surfaced in a Columbia newspaper.

"As much as reporters like to advance that theory, we're in the position of not being able to prove a negative," Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said. "The governor said from the very beginning that he was not targeting anyone, but as he saw people who decided to run on their own to run against people who haven't always been the most supportive of his agenda that he may get involved in a few races."

Sanford will publicly lend his support to Nutt in an advertisement that debuts today on GoUpstate.com.

When Kelly was told about this, he said, "The governor's upset with me because I do not favor school consolidation for Spartanburg County. He wants one school district per county. And, he favors school choices - vouchers and credits. But the governor and I agree on 95 percent of all issues. I have voted to sustain a number of vetoes this week. We agree on less taxes. We agree on less spending. I voted for caps on spending. We disagree on schools. Spartanburg County has excellent schools. I will not vote for vouchers or credits that take money out of public education."

Columnist details a "hit campaign" memo

In June, columnist Cindi Ross Scoppe described a "hit campaign" outlined in a memorandum that she says was "allegedly written by" a former spokesman for the governor, Mark Sanford.

It's the one that created a stir at the State House earlier this year, allegedly written by former Sanford spokesman Will Folks, which lists the lawmakers who should be taken out in order to create "a more conservative Republican majority" to implement Mr. Sanford's ideas, along with the strategy for accomplishing that. On a hunch, I picked it up and started thumbing through it.

It's so filled with over-the-top, cloak-and-dagger nonsense that if I didn't know better, I'd think it was parody, composed by a clever writer who planned to let it "leak," and then sit back and laugh at all the gullible media types and lawmakers who took it seriously. But I knew it wasn't parody, because I had just seen it being implemented.

Central to the strategy, the memo said, was to "create a unifying platform" for favored challengers to sign -- "Call it a 'Contract With South Carolina,' a "South Carolina Contract for Competitiveness,' call it whatever". It would include "a spending cap, an overhaul of the tax code and government restructuring."

The memo suggests the creation of a "Core Council" that would coordinate the campaign (working in secret so nobody knew it was coordinated, and thus subject to those pesky campaign disclosure laws that Mr. Sanford championed but his best allies have no intention of obeying).
...
The memo doesn't say who's bankrolling the hit campaign, but we know who has been pouring money into the Sanford agenda: the anti-government folks from New York and other parts outside our state whose first goal is to undermine public support for the most expensive thing state government does, by paying parents to abandon the public schools.

As Scoppe describes the memo, it sounds like a template that could be applied to any state.

Scoppe writes that she and her colleagues have supported a "government restructuring" initiative for years, but the presence of this memo puts her and other in "the Mark Sanford dilemma."

My colleagues and I have been pushing him for years to put some political muscle into government restructuring, rather than reserving it all for income tax cuts and vouchers. Now, it appears that he's doing just that. And I so want to believe that he is. But can anybody trust him and his support groups, particularly given who's writing the checks?

Consider their past -- and their present.

We're now in the middle of the third Republican primary cycle that is marked by big-bucks campaigns aimed at defeating legislators who oppose private-school vouchers and tax credits. Each time, you were hard-pressed to find any mention of vouchers or tax credits in the reams of attack post cards and radio spots. Simple reason: The voucher backers know they're not popular in South Carolina -- not even in Republican primaries.

So they attack on other grounds, usually making misleading charges and occasionally even fabricating them. They say their targets want to raise the gas tax based on a survey they filled out a decade ago, claim they voted for spending bills that they actually opposed, focus on state judicial elections that they hope voters will confuse with the liberal-conservative fights in Washington that haven't occurred here.

In short, SCRG and Conservatives in Action and other pro-Sanford groups whose funding has been traced back to New York libertarian Howie Rich (scbarbecue.blogspot.com) have a record of building their campaigns around populist Trojan horses to hide their real agenda and suck in ordinary voters who don't live and breathe this stuff.

"Be careful what you ask for; you might get a Trojan horse," State, The (Columbia, SC) - June 4, 2008

Fliers may have come from Howard Rich

In early May, back in South Carolina, fliers began to appear in mailboxes of voters in the Upstate, the northwest corner of the state. The fliers promoted a slate of candidates it called "tax-cutting conservatives," but the Spartanburg Herald-Journal reported that the issues listed on the fliers "are a veil to cover the group's real agenda, school choice." One of the candidates being promoted by the fliers was Joey Millwood, the young man running against veteran lawmaker Bob Walker.

South Carolinians for Responsible Government has sent mailings in support of Republican candidates Roger Nutt, an engineer facing incumbent Rep. Keith Kelly, and Joey Millwood , a journalist facing incumbent Rep. Bob Walker in June. The group has also sent out a flier supporting Ken Roach, who is running against fellow Republican and retired gas company executive Mike Forrester to challenge incumbent Democrat Ronnie Hart in November.

The candidates supported by South Carolinians for Responsible Government say that group issued its support without their knowledge, but they welcome it. The Responsible Government group's leaders say their organization is being pigeonholed as a single-issue advocate. S.C. law does not require so-called political awareness groups to disclose their donors, so it is unclear who is funding these mailings.

One of the fliers was illustrated with a "cartoon pig" and the other one showed a "a chubby, cigar-smoking man in a suit and tie." Neither Roger Nutt nor Joey Millwood claimed credit for the fliers.

Nutt and Millwood said the first time they saw the fliers was after they were mailed out. Both men have retained the services of consultant Chad Connelly, a board member of South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

But someone else concluded that the fliers were part of a strategy, the Herald said.

Political consultant Wesley Donahue called the fliers a diversion from South Carolinians for Responsible Government's true agenda - putting legislators in Columbia who support school choice. Donahue's client list includes Kelly, Forrester, and state Rep. Scott Talley, who is seeking a Senate seat against Lee Bright and L.B. Watson.

"Look at those mail pieces, and you will know which legislators stand with South Carolina public schools," Donahue said. "Bob Walker, Keith Kelly, Mike Forrester - these are people that stand with Spartanburg County public schools. It's these Ken Roaches and Roger Nutts of the world that have sold their soul to the voucher crowd."

"These guys are being back-funded, and recruited by these out-of-state millionaires who want to experiment on our public schools," Donahue said. "They should have to disclose. Everybody else does. That's what's so dirty about this whole thing."
...
Millwood has said that he would not support vouchers but would consider tax credits for parents who opt to send their children to a nonpublic school.
...
"School choice itself is a tenet of the Republican Party. So, the concept that parents are given a choice as to how their children are educated is something I would stand behind. The voucher idea, I'm not for. But I would entertain looking at the tax credits," Nutt said.

And the Herald itself identified who might be funding the group in South Carolina, and its fliers.

South Carolinians for Responsible Government has been tied to New York millionaire Howard Rich, who has supported a number of Republican candidates in this state through a variety of organizations and like-minded associates.

In 2006, South Carolinians for Responsible Government sued the State Ethics Commission after its director said it was trying to influence an election and had to disclose financial information. The state Attorney General's Office refused to provide the ethics commission with attorneys, and the case was eventually dismissed.

A bill this year that would have required political awareness organizations to disclose their financial information went nowhere. Neil Mellen, spokesman for South Carolinians for Responsible Government, called forcing a private, membership-supported group to disclose its financial information "ridiculous."

"Group mails fliers on candidates," Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - May 15, 2008

Mystery sponsors use push-polling in Woodruff

At the opposite end of Spartanburg County from Landrum is the community of Woodruff, whose high school was named one of the best in the nation this year by U.S. News and World Report. Woodruff has been represented in the South Carolina House for almost two years by Keith Kelly, an attorney, a past president of the Woodruff Rotary Club and past chairman of the board of trustees at Woodruff's Emma Gray Memorial United Methodist Church. His fellow Army Reservists call him Captain Kelly, but Woodruff's voters call him Keith.

Keith is married to Cindy Kelly, who suffered a brief health scare sixteen months ago when it was thought she might have breast cancer. Thankfully, a biopsy on April 26 turned out fine. Keith was by her side for the procedure that day, which happened to be a legislative workday. In fact, it was the only day of Keith's first term as a state representative that he has missed work, according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

But that single missed day of work became an issue in March of this year, when someone (or some organization) sponsored a "push-poll" that delivered messages by telephone to voters in Keith's district. The message was that Keith "was not attending sessions and was not voting."

No one has claimed responsibility for the calls targeting Kelly, but he has a short list of suspects: S.C. Club for Growth, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, ReformSC and Conservatives in Action - four groups that want to take the state on a hard right turn. They are eating their own in an effort to create a Legislature in their image, Kelly said.

The calls are just one example of the forces at work across the state trying to affect legislative races in Spartanburg County. Most voters will never meet the would-be puppet masters, but they'll likely get a phone call or two because of them, or a piece of mail. The collective agenda of the above-named advocacy groups includes school choice - specifically vouchers - strengthening the powers of the governor, shrinking government and capping state spending.

Sound familiar? It is a mantra Gov. Mark Sanford has repeated for years.

One of the groups Keith suspected of sponsoring the push-poll told the Herald-Journal that it was looking for candidates to run against incumbents, even Republicans, in their primaries. S.C. Club for Growth's executive director Matt Moore named "restructuring and good-government kinds of issues" as their agenda. He said that South Carolina's conservative two-term governor, Mark Sanford, had outlined such an agenda but complained that legislators "aren't listening to their voters and are destroying the reforms that he's pushing."

Chad Walldorf, the organization's chairman, is a longtime Sanford ally.

The Herald-Journal reported on March 23 that Keith wasn't the only target of push-polls this year, though he was the subject of at least two of them. By that date, Rep. Bob Walker of Landrum, and Senators Scott Talley and Jim Ritchie had been targeted by one each. "No one is taking credit for them, but fingers are pointing in all directions," the Herald wrote.

The county's Republican Party chairman said that all four of the groups Keith named were "recruiting to fill holes, and, if they're not comfortable with an incumbent, looking for an alternate who fits their version of the Republican mold. That's exactly what's happening, whether they want to tell you that or not."

And, the Herald-Journal wrote, "When it comes to who is funding these groups, the waters are murky - and the groups want to keep it that way."

Keith agreed. He told the paper, "They're trying to get a bloc of legislators that they control, period," Kelly said. "Then it won't matter what the issue is, it won't matter whether it's good for the district or the state. It will truly be money talks at that point. They don't care one flip about this state."

In addition to the four groups that Keith named, though, the Herald-Journal found four more who said they were "interviewing" potential candidates to challenge incumbents: "the Palmetto Family Council, the state Chamber of Commerce, the state Realtors Association and the S.C. Business & Industry Political Education Committee."

Among those potential candidates was one who didn't want to confirm his intentions to the Herald-Journal.

Thomas DeLoach, president of the Business & Industry Political Education Committee, said Joey Millwood , sports editor of the Tryon (N.C.) Daily Bulletin, was among the potential candidates he met with. Millwood, who might be considering a run against Walker, declined to comment.

"Groups seek to shape Legislature - Targeting politicians: Some say tactics used are 'inherently unfair'"
Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - March 23, 2008