No special election for Bobby’s seat

BY ANDREW SHAIN reporting at

“Voters will cast ballots Tuesday for the seat once held by House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, after the S.C. Supreme Court halted a special election ordered by state election officials.”

The Supreme Court issued an order Friday placing a stay on the special election and allowing voting to move forward Tuesday with other races statewide.

Voters will cast ballots Tuesday for the seat once held by House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, after the S.C. Supreme Court halted a special election ordered by state election officials.

The state Elections Commission ruled on Thursday that Republicans could hold a primary after Election Day to find a new nominee. Commission members voted unanimously that Harrell was disqualified from the race, which opened the door for a special election. Harrell resigned and agreed not to seek office for three years as part of a guilty plea agreement last week on campaign-finance charges.

I have not read the law, nor listened to the testimony.

But on the surface, I agree with the Supreme Court, unless there are compelling on point arguments otherwise.

October 31, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

“Not Constitutional?” SC Lawmakers think “Oh Crap. Now what?”

Jamie Murguia writes this at TheNerve.orgLegislative Self-Policing Takes a Hit

Legislators’ go-to excuse for retaining the power to police their own members – namely that the constitution somehow requires them to – took a big hit on Thursday. Jorge Roig, a law professor at the Charleston School of Law, told members of the Enforcement and Investigation Subcommittee of the Ethics and Freedom of Information Act Study Committee that, based on his study of the state constitution and relative case law, the legislature is “free to delegate” to a third party for investigations and is only bound to set their own rules.

Professor Roig is not the first constitutional scholar to conclude that the authority vested in each body to make their own rules via Article 3, Section 12 largely deals with the General Assembly’s power to stop disorderly conduct – not with members’ violations of ethics laws. John Simpkins, at the time a colleague of Roig’s at the Charleston School of Law, expressed a similar view while serving on the governor’s ethics study committee nearly two years ago.

So … EXACTLY LIKE that time when … ‘member?? … SC Legislators told us they REALLY REALLY wanted to record their votes, but “darn it, it’s just not Constitutional.”

They lied.

You need to stay on this. Talk with each legislator in your county and express to them how important it is to you that they fight very hard for true ethics reform. Whether or not they are on whichever committee is holding hearings at the moment. This is something every legislator ought to be making progress on, in or out of committee.

The article ends …

Professor Roig hit on another problem that lurks beneath the surface of ethics reform: lawmakers’ misunderstanding of the principle of separation of powers. It’s long been a joke that, for South Carolina legislators, “separation of powers” means separating the executive branch from its power and placing it under the legislature. The idea that members of the legislature should police each others’ ethical conduct – and in some cases even criminal conduct – is premised on the notion that lawmakers hold preeminent, unchecked power.

Professor Roig pulled the rug from under that assumption. Non-lawmaking South Carolinians should thank him.

October 31, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

Trey Gowdy and Tim Scott invite YOU!

To a poll closing celebration Tuesday November 4 from 6:30 to 7:30 PM

The Runway Cafe
South Ramp of the Greenville Downtown Airport
21 Airport Road Ext., Greenville, SC 29607


October 31, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce supporting Sunday alcohol sales

Jason Spencer (WELCOME BACK JASON! although you’ve been back for a while …) reporting at SHJ today:

The Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce, a membership-based organization representing businesses in and around the county, is supporting efforts to allow bars, restaurants, hotels and other entities to sell alcohol on Sundays.

The chamber — whose mission is to provide “the leadership voice of the business community to the development of the community agenda for progress” — sees it as an economic development tool, a way to give Spartanburg a competitive advantage over other areas that don’t allow such sales, like Greenville County, and to bolster existing businesses here.

“Basically, we need to pass this to support our current hospitality-related businesses and to recruit and retain more,” said Russ Weber, chairman of the chamber’s Economic Futures Group.

“Anyone in the hospitality business, they need to be able to expand, and I think it helps everyone in that industry. That’s what we do, you know? … It’s about helping them survive.”

Voting yes on Tuesday would allow businesses to apply for permits to sell spirits on Sundays for on-premises consumption. A one-year permit would cost $3,000, according to state law.

And local guy T Clark is recognized as a citizen who wanted to see something changed …and got to work. Hope it passed on Tuesday, T!

Citizens and Business for Spartanburg County, an informal group of 10 to 12 volunteers, has put up more than 30 “Vote Yes” signs around the county and began airing radio ads on 93.3 The Planet and WORD on Wednesday to support the initiative.

William T. Clark, who heads that effort, said his group so far has raised about $4,500 from a handful of restaurants and Spartanburg Tomorrow. His goal was to raise $10,000 to $12,000.

Clark said he started his push for Sunday alcohol sales after he couldn’t get a glass of wine at an Italian restaurant in the Moore area and ended up driving to Spartanburg.

October 31, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

It took until November, but here is the STUPIDEST Politician Quote of the year!

In an article at by Cassie Cope entitled “SC House moves to limit speaker’s terms, ban some PACs” … I read the absolutely stupidest quote by a politician this year.

Context is everything, and well all know how Bobby Harrell was defended, propped up, kowtowed to, supported by constituents, officials, voters, and colleagues who KNEW he had lost the trust.

And re-elected as Speaker.

The S.C. House of Representatives should disperse more power among its members by restricting the terms of its speaker and prohibiting members from having leadership political action committees, a panel proposed Thursday.

“It’s important to change leadership in the speaker’s position periodically,” said acting Speaker Jay Lucas, who is expected to be elected speaker at the December meeting.

The Darlington Republican pushed for term limits in the wake of the fall of former Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston. Last week, Harrell, who had been speaker since 2005, pleaded guilty to charges of public corruption and resigned.

House Majority Leader Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville, and House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, voted against term limits for the speaker.

Bannister said the speaker already has a term limit of two years, referring to the every two-year election held for the post.

If we put an arbitrary number on it, what we’re saying is that we don’t have the fortitude to determine when our leaders are not doing what they’re supposed to do and run against them and change the leadership,” said Bannister.

However, no House members publicly revolted against Harrell’s leadership during an almost 2-year-long investigation into corruption allegations against the speaker, one of the most powerful politicians in South Carolina.



October 31, 2014  Tags: ,   Posted in: Uncategorized  One Comment

State election officials opt to delay election in Bobby Harrell’s old House seat

Jeremy Borden reporting at The Post and Courier:

The State Election Commission has decided to delay the Nov. 4 election for former Speaker Bobby Harrell’s House seat to give the Republican party time to nominate a new candidate.

Harrell stepped down earlier this month after pleading guilt to six counts of misusing his campaign funds for his own benefit. As part of his plea deal, he will serve three years on probation and may not seek office again until 2017.

Election officials previously said that the District 114 House election would continue between Democrat Mary Tinkler and Green party candidate Sue Edward – and that a vote for Harrell would not count. However, today’s decision reverses that position.

The Democrats indicated they would quickly petition the S.C. Supreme Court to intervene the reverse the commission’s decision.

Republicans argued state law calls for delaying the District 114 election to give them a shot at nominating a new GOP candidate in the heavily Republican district, which runs form West Ashley into southern Dorchester County. Harrell signed an affidavit earlier this week saying his stepping down was done for nonpolitical reasons – a requirement under the law.

Democrats argued that Harrell’s resignation was political, and it would be unfair to voters to delay the election.

October 30, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  2 Comments

Road Trip? THIS is something to celebrate!

Go if you can. Hope it’s the first of many citizen legislators winning seats!


In June Jonathon Hill won his House primary against the incumbent.

On Saturday, November 22nd 2014, Jonathon will take the oath of office to represent District 8 in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

Clerk of Court Richard Shirley will administer the oath of office at 1 1am at Double Springs Baptist Church at 535 Double Springs Rd in Townville, SC. There will be a reception afterwards.

This event is open to the public and anyone wishing to attend may RSVP by November 19th by calling 864-245-5885 or emailing

South Carolina House District 8 covers the northwestern quadrant of Anderson County, including the Townville, Mt. Tabor, Centerville, Center Rock, Lakeside, Sandy Springs, and Williford communities.

Jonathon Hill won the Republican primary election on June 10th, 2014 and faces no opposition in the general election.

CLICK HERE for the Facebook Invite.

October 28, 2014  Tags:   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

What Hillary said. and THEN what she said after.

So you may have heard this pearl of economic wisdom from Hillary the other day (reported at

Hillary Clinton recently told supporters at a campaign rally, “Don’t let anybody tell you that… it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

See the video at the link above.

Emily Zanotti at The American Spectator has a follow up story:

Clinton herself was concerned enough about the coverage her statement got that yesterday evening, she tried to iron everything out. She didn’t succeed. But she tried.

On Monday at a campaign event for New York Rep. Sean Maloney, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, Clinton went for a do-over, saying, “Let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades: Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Apparently, she “short-handed” her remarks earlier. When she got the chance for a re-do, she actually confounded the statement more by adding in some stuff about the minimum wage and overseas tax havens, and an odd, nonsensical metaphor about building things. Which I mean to say, she watered her original statement down with a bunch of nothing, which, as a politician, is the best you can hope for: that people are so confused by the buzzwords you string together that they take little to no notice of any actual content.

October 28, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  One Comment

‘Reform’ Effort Would Squelch Right to Petition

Do they NEVER EVER learn/listen?????

Jamie Murguia writing at with the latest lamebrain, and kinda quite evil plan by SC legislator(s):

Some state lawmakers still think ethics reform is some sort of “gotcha” game. Last year, they used the public demand for ethics reform as a way to loosen ethics laws, this year they want to use the issue as a way to silence their critics.

Or maybe I shouldn’t say “they.” Maybe it’s just one lawmaker I’m talking about.

At a recent meeting of the House Rules and Procedures Ad-Hoc Committee, Rep. Kris Crawford (R-Florence) proposed a rule that would require any individual testifying before a House committee to meet extensive disclosure requirements about the organization he or she represents. For the representative of a nonprofit organization to testify – if this rule were to pass – the House committee would demand the names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals or corporations that donate to the organization or group; and the source, type, and amount of donations received in the previous twelve months.

Mind you, the scope of this committee is limited to the House rules – internal House rules. To try to interfere with private citizens’ right to petition their government – and to try to do it through an internal rule which would only require one vote by the 124 lawmakers of the body – is both absurd and unconstitutional. Under the First Amendment, citizens have a right to come together to petition their government without fear of retribution. (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”) Clearly, forcing citizen organizations petitioning their government to reveal their financials and donor lists would be an easy way to make the representatives of those organizations think twice before testifying. It would be like handing hostile politicians a list of your supporters and saying, “Here, guys. Use your power and influence to get these people to stop supporting us.”

Unfortunately, though, there’s more going on here than a lone politician trying to prevent citizens and organizations from formally and publicly addressing their government. The problem isn’t so much the politician. It’s the mindset he typifies. Does he think the role of elected officials is to hand down laws and regulations to the common folk, and that the common folk, if they want to raise questions, need to ask permission first? At a time when the leader of the very body Rep. Crawford represents was facing a nine-count indictment for violations of the Ethics Act – and subsequently pled guilty to six counts – one hopes not.

In fairness, some elected officials on and off this ad hoc committee are genuinely interested in reform. But it’s difficult to give lawmakers the benefit of the doubt when this isn’t the first time lawmakers have attempted to squelch free speech through an effort of “reform.” Earlier this year the omnibus “ethics reform” bill would have forced the same types of group leaders to register as lobbyists prior to testifying before a legislative committee.

I suspect – and hope – that the unconstitutional nature of Rep. Crawford’s proposal will prevent the ad hoc committee from approving this recommendation. The House Rules and Procedure Ad-Hoc Committee will have its final meeting Thursday, when members will consider this and other proposals. You can watch this meeting live on the State House website.

Jamie Murguia is Director of Research at the S.C. Policy Council

October 27, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  2 Comments

Evert’s Electables

always a good read! very long so CLICK TO READ MORE when you get to the bottom and see the link.


Evert’s Electables
General Election
November 4, 2014

About Evert: I consider myself to be a conservative Republican, and as such you will see that most of the people I support are Republicans. I care about both social and fiscal issues.

• For candidates already in office, my comments reflect their voting records over the course of their tenure.
• For those who have never held office and who claim a position, I will state their claim; but understand that I have little by which to verify that claim. If they have run before, I have gone back to see what their statements and positions were.
• Stating that I am voting for a candidate does not mean I endorse them. In the General Election you have to vote FOR someone. If I endorse someone, I will state it.

If there is no liberal running in the General Election––vote for the candidate that most closely matches your own viewpoints. I do try to ascertain if a challenger has given sufficient reason for me to change my vote from the incumbent or if the incumbent has failed to live up to his conservative campaign promises.
Lindsey Graham INCUMBENT
He is probably the most controversial candidate in South Carolina. He is center-right; not as conservative as Tim Scott and Jim DeMint. A sidekick of John McCain throughout his entire tenure in the Senate. Relatively conservative voting record except for major discrepancies on some major issues to conservatives—cap and trade, immigration, and Supreme Court nominees. Sen. Graham has always been a fighter for issues he cares about. While we cheer when he’s on our side (ObamaCare, Benghazi, gun rights, Right to Life, strong military, traditional marriage, support for veterans), he has a tendency to poke his finger in the eye of his detractors in the Republican Party, especially when it comes to immigration and cooperating with Democrats. 100% ranking from the National Right to Life. “A-“ NRA ranking and endorsement. The GOA (Gun Owners of America) gave him a “C” ranking, although 3 of Graham’s votes they counted were in reference to a cloture vote (to stop debate) on an ObamaCare vote. Very strong supporter of veterans; he fought very hard to ensure the benefits veterans had already earned were honored when other Republicans in D.C. wanted to renege on the promise to our veterans and to retroactively and substantially cut retirement benefits—veterans will come out and support him. Endorsed by Nat’l Right to Life PAC, SC Citizens for Life PAC, Sen. Mike Fair, Lisa Van Riper, Charlie Condon, Dee Benedict, Roberta Combs, Holly Gatling, and Alexia Newman.

Brad Hutto – Democrat
He is a current state senator from Orangeburg. He is your typical Washington-style liberal Democrat—tax-and-spend, big government. He is one of the Senate Democrats who have been aggressively pushing for S.C. to adopt all forms of ObamaCare and Common Core State Standards (CCSS); wants to increase the minimum wage; pro-labor. On gun rights, he refused to answer the NRA’s questionnaire. He also did the same with GOA (Gun Owners of America which is to the right of the NRA). He’s pretty hostile to the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms). He has been a champion for abortion rights—in fact has led the opposition to every single pro-life bill that has ever come to the floor in the State Senate. This past 2-year cycle he was successful in stopping the pain-capable bill which would have outlawed abortions after 22 weeks gestation. He is so much a champion for abortion rights that Planned Parenthood gave him their endorsement. As far as I can tell, he is the only person to receive their endorsement in this state. He would be Pres. Obama’s champion in the Senate. He is extremely intelligent; he knows the rules and he knows how to use them to good effect. He has been a thorn to conservatives in the State Senate. As much as I’d like to get him out of the State Senate, I don’t want to put him in the U.S. Senate!

Thomas Ravenel – Petition
Running as an independent candidate. Formerly ran for U.S. Senate and lost. Ran for State Treasurer in ’06 and won, then was removed from office after being convicted of felony cocaine use/distribution. After he got out of jail, he publicly renounced his citizenship, although he never followed through on the paperwork. In general, he’s a cad. He was able to gain access to the federal ballot only because our Constitution gives only 2 requirements to be a senator (that the candidate reside in the state he’s running in and be over the age of 30); he would not be able to gain access to any office in the state of S.C. because of his felony conviction—at least not for another 14 years. He is running more as a left-of-center Libertarian. He refused the GOA’s questionnaire. He has stated that social conservatives should not be elected to office. Favors gay marriage. He has in the past been a supporter of pro-life legislation; but he hasn’t stated his current position on his website, so I don’t know if it’s the same or not. Favors the legalization of drugs and is a true Libertarian when it comes to national security (isolationism and a much smaller military). I will say that he is the most conservative on economic policy but lacks the other 2 legs that have defined conservatism since before Reagan (social issues and foreign policy). The last poll showed him at 8%.

Victor Kocher – Libertarian
Economically conservative. On his website he clearly defines a pro-life decision. Is a limited government Libertarian. I don’t know where he is on the other issues—he dealt only with pro-life on his website. Currently at 3% in the polls and as such will not affect the overall election.

Evert: As I’ve stated above, whenever a liberal is on the ballot, I will always choose the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. I cannot support nor can I encourage any person to vote for Thomas Ravenal—not even based on his issues; in my opinion his name shouldn’t even be on the ballot; and, if he were to win, the U.S. Senate could refuse to seat him based on his renunciation of citizenship and felony conviction. Although I’d have preferred a better choice in the Primary, Lindsey Graham is a center/right candidate on life issues, marriage, gun rights, foreign policy, and supporting our military; he has seldom been wrong on those issues. Therefore, Graham is the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning this race.
I am voting for Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Read the rest of this post »

October 27, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  5 Comments