"Vetting" Mark Sanford

Once a fortnight, the Wall Street Journal op-ed page makes a point to float Mark Sanford's name out there as a potential VP candidate. Like here, here. here, here and here, and like they did this Saturday in the column “South Carolina’s Contender.”

It may have been a good piece, but I couldn’t read much further than the sentence that read, “Mr. Sanford's main governing problem is the state's constitution.”

Oh, brother.

As you know, we here at Barbecue & Politics have always shared the Journal's fondness of Sanford, except for the last six years or so, when his governing skills have been in a deep recession.

So, yeah, part of Gervais would love to see Sanford get a boarding pass to join the Straight Talk Express as a VP candidate, on the possibility that John McCain wins in November. Or maybe an ambassadorship to Mauritius, which is beautiful this time of year. (Although Mauritius also has a constitution, so watch out.)

But if you're one of the dozen or so people who "get their Gerv' on" regularly at this blog, chances are you, unlike the WSJ, have acquainted yourself with the actualities of the SC governorship – the selling out to out-of-state interests, etc. – and you know that Sanford is, well let’s just say he’s more of a “stuntsman” than a “statesman.”

The media like to focus on the same old stunts: carrying pigs into the State House, or the horse and buggy thing, or vetoing the entire budget. That stuff sold a few papers in its day, and is still funny in its own sort of way.

But Sanford’s biggest publicity stunt, the one that first caught Gervais’ eye when he was just a piglet, doesn’t get much play from the mainstream media, and sure won’t get any ink in the pages of the WSJ.

However, McCain has several close ties to SC political insiders, and the McCampaign has probably already done a little “due diligence” on Sanford as a potential running mate. So they already know about Sanford’s stunt in the Air Force Reserves. And, no, I didn’t mean to say “stint.”

But for the benefit of those of you just tuning in, here’s the basic timeline:

March 2001: Former congressman Mark Sanford announces bid for governor of South Carolina. Right on! (Greenville News, 3/27/01).

January 2002: Sanford joins the Air Force Reserves at age 41, ten months into his campaign for governor. He currently leads the GOP gubernatorial candidates in fundraising with over $1.5 million cash-on-hand. (Post & Courier 1/12/02).

June 2002: Lieutenant Sanford wins GOP primary.

August 2002: Lt. Sanford: "It's not ideal from a campaigning standpoint, but it's what I wanted to do, so you make it work as best you can." (Sanford can’t find class space, Post & Courier, 8/3/02)

November 2002: Sanford elected governor, 53% to 47%, over incumbent Gov. Jim Hodges.

December 2002: Eleven month veteran Sanford attempts a daring “elect and eject” maneuver: "I can't go with them. I'm trying to figure out where we go from here. By virtue of the fact I'm governor(-elect), I've moved into a nondeployable status." Sanford says he “may have to” resign his commission. (Sanford mulls leaving Air Force Reserve, AP 12/28/02)

January 2003: A constitutional expert at the USC says he is unaware of any provisions that would keep Sanford from serving, and an Air Force spokesperson says Sanford “would have no choice” if activated, and could not transfer to a nondeployable unit. Sanford does an about-face: "The bottom line for me is that I made a commitment and I am going to keep it. Therefore, as to any orders I receive I will do just as anyone else in my unit and follow them … I believe simply that this is consistent with who I am as a person." (Sanford says he'll serve if Reserve unit activated, Greenville News 1/29/03)

March 2003: Sanford now supports draft, no special favors. To CNN: “I happen to be one of those that really think we ought to reinstate the draft, that, again, everybody ought to be vested in the American system… [I]n Vietnam … people had an option to get a medical degree or a law degree. That child wouldn't go, but the poor kid from Allendale who didn't, frankly, have those educational options, they were the one that was sent to Vietnam. And I think we need to get away from that as a country.”

April 2003: 14 months after joining, Governor Sanford completes two weeks of elite “knife and fork school” for officers directly commissioned into the Reserve. In the event of a Taliban ambush of the Governor’s Mansion, Sanford now able to “salute them to death.” (Post & Courier, 10/22/04).

January 2004: Two years after joining, Sanford still not qualified to do his job in the Air Force Reserve, but says he is working on a correspondence course to train as a medical administrator. Also reportedly playing Risk on home computer. (Reserves to promote Sanford to captain, Post & Courier 1/10/04)

February 2004: About 40% of Sanford’s unit, the 315^th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, has been called to active duty so far, according to the AP. (Reserve still a Sanford problem, Post & Courier 2/10/04).

June 2004: February to October is a long time for nothing to happen, so it seems like I should throw “June” in between. But actually, nothing happened.

October 2004: About 60% of the 315^th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron’s 125 members have been activated. Sanford “has never been mobilized, possibly because he hasn't received all of the training he needs to be fully qualified in his Air Force job.” After all, it’s only been 31 months. Major Cynthia Camp, an actual “participating” member of the 315th AES, awarded Bronze Star for her efforts overseas. (Stellar Examples, Post & Courier 10/2/04; Sanford to complete his Air Force training, Post & Courier 10/22/04)

January 2005: Halfway through his six-year commitment to the reserves, Sanford reports for duty in Texas to continue training as a medical evacuation officer. An Air Force spokesman cannot say whether this training would finally make Sanford qualified for his position, but notes Sanford “did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (Governor reports for Reserve duty, Post & Courier 1/14/05).

March 2005: Sanford transfers, kicking and screaming, to an Air Force homeland disaster relief agency, as an Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer. Sanford: "I've always said if the military comes calling, I'm going. Having transferred, I would say were they to be deployed, I'd obviously call and see if there was a way I could help out, given that's a role I've been training in for three years." To help out further, Sanford plans to “dial down the center” saving his old unit a ton of money on the collect call. (Air Force transfers Sanford to new job, Post & Courier, 3/10/05).

April 2005: A month after Sanford’s reluctant transfer, one-third (35 members) of the 315^th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron called to active duty. (Sanford's former Reserve unit called into duty, Post & Courier 4/26/05)

August 8, 2005: Twenty more members of 315^th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron called to active duty. (Charleston Air Force reservists to be activated, Post & Courier 8/2/05).

August 29, 2005: Hurricane Katrina hits Louisiana and Mississippi. Time to spring into action!

September 2^nd-3^rd, 2005: Vermont’s Lt. Governor, an Air Force Reserve Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer like Sanford, reports for duty to support recovery efforts for Hurricane Katrina, coordinating supply and medical airlifts and conducting site visits in Mississippi and Louisiana. (Vermonters Make A Difference in Hurricane Aftermath, Brian Dubie 9/18/05)

Captain Mark Sanford reports to vacation: “The governor stopped short of asking residents to cancel travel plans for the popular Labor Day weekend. ‘There's no place like home,’ said Sanford, who still plans to travel to his family farm in Beaufort.” (South Carolinians urged to conserve as costs soar, Post and Courier 9/2/05)

October 2006: Sanford describes his Air Force job "self-deploying”: “That means, if there is a national emergency, such as a terrorist attack or a natural disaster like a hurricane, members of the unit voluntarily report. There are no mandatory call-ups, he said.” (For Sanford, it's all about satisfaction, The State 10/8/06)

All of which brings me back to the Wall Street Journal article, which I actually did go back and read, while you were reading this post. In the piece, Sanford says: “I put my left hand on the Bible and raised my right hand and I swear to uphold the constitution.”

Of course, Sanford wasn’t talking about the military oath that he took “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” He was justifying why he brought pigs into the State House.

McCain’s patriotism and service are indisputable. I don’t think picking someone like Sanford would hurt the ticket in that regard. (In fact, that's a pretty balanced ticket: self-sacrifice at the top, and self-service at the bottom.)

But I do think that when he picks a VP candidate, chances are McCain will pick somebody who can take the oath of office without people having to wonder if he means it ... and therefore he probably won't look twice at "South Carolina's Pretender." No matter how badly the Wall Street Journal seems to want him to.

Thursday THRASH Award: SC Association of Taxpayers (updated)

According to the latest Winthrop/ETV poll, South Carolina taxpayers overwhelmingly want to raise our lowest-in-the-nation, seven cents per pack cigarette tax. And fortunately, there’s an association which represents the views of taxpayers and lobbies the General Assembly on our behalf. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the association is currently being co-opted by Big Tobacco.

That group, the North – er, South – Carolina Association of Tobacco – er, Taxpayers was busted last month for using cash and lobbying materials from the tobacco industry. From The State’s “R.J. Reynold’s stealth move,” 3/3/08:

The message began showing up in mailboxes last week in the form of 10,000 postcards sent to Republican activists by the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers…

Several Senate staffers said the chart on the postcards is the same chart that R.J. Reynolds lobbyists were showing some state senators in weeks prior…

The postcard also warns that the “hospital industry and insurance company special interests want Legislators to raise your taxes!”…

“We got some donations,” Weaver said, when asked if R.J. Reynolds paid for the postcards. “We get a lot of corporate donations, let’s put it that way.”

Um, this might go without saying, but R.J. Reynolds couldn’t give a flying trapeze artist about our tax policy in South Carolina. I suspect what they care about is their profits. And they’re using a non-profit to get their profits.

Update: Somebody slipped Gervais an email to let me know that the SC Association of Taxpayers is not a non-profit, and sure enough I can't find SCAT on the SC Secretary of State website anywhere. According to the SCAT website, it is "an independent, privately funded research group whose purpose is to encourage government to work more efficiently." Let me pare that down for you: Advocacy for Hire.

Using Big Tobacco money to mail out Big Tobacco propaganda to South Carolina voters under the name of a South Carolina group doesn’t seem right. Gervais says, next time, tell 'em to send it under their own name.

For selling out its credibility, the SC Association of Taxpayers wins the second Thursday THRASH award.

The Howard Rich Advocacy & Shilling for Hire (THRASH) awards were created to honor South Carolina political advocacy groups that are controlled by, funded by, or specifically created by out of state interests under the guise of representing the actual interests and values of actual South Carolinians.

Synchronized spending from Charleston

Rich folks from Charleston soon may finally have a voice in South Carolina government. That’s right… the days of the Lowcountry being virtually unrepresented in the State House may be coming to an end.

I know this because when Gervais was searching the State Ethics Commission’s super new online disclosure website, I discovered that Charleston County is getting a lot more involved in funding primary campaigns around the state.

Not all of Charleston, of course. Actually, it’s pretty much just five guys and their ol’ ladies. But it’s a start.

The queer thing is that even though Charleston is an indisputable melting pot of diverse political opinion, these five guys were pretty consistent with one another as far as how much money they gave, when they gave, and to whom they gave:

Senate Candidate Lee Bright, Spartanburg
William Baker, Kiawah Island $1000
Ruth Baker, Kiawah Island $1000
John Barter, Kiawah Island $1000
Mary Barter, Kiawah Island $1000
Chad Walldorf, Sullivans Island $500
Bill Hewitt, Charleston $1000
Laura Hewitt, Charleston $1000
Wilbur Prezzano, Charleston $1000
Sheila Prezzano, Charleston $1000

Senate Candidate Katrina Shealy, Lexington
William Baker, Kiawah Island $1000
Ruth Baker, Kiawah Island $1000
John Barter, Kiawah Island $1000
Mary Barter, Kiawah Island $1000
Chad Walldorf, Sullivans Island $1000
Jena Walldorf, Sullivans Island $1000
Wilbur Prezzano, Charleston $1000
Sheila Prezzano, Charleston $1000
William Hewitt, Charleston $1000
Laura Hewitt, Charleston $1000
SC Club for Growth PAC $1000

House Candidate Tim Scott, N. Charleston
William Baker, Kiawah Island $1000
Ruth Baker, Kiawah Island $1000
John Barter, Kiawah Island $1000
Mary Barter, Kiawah Island $1000
Chad Walldorf, Sullivans Island $1000
Bill Hewitt, Charleston $1000
Laura Hewitt, Charleston $1000
Wilbur Prezzano, Charleston $1000
Sheila Prezzano, Charleston $1000
SC Club for Growth LLC $1000

Interesting, right? It reminds me of those little fish that all change directions at once. Except these aren’t little fish, they’re big fish. And the fish are all on land. And it’s actually a little less disorienting to predators, because it's just money. Okay, it's not the best metaphor.

Who egged Joshua Gross's car?

It’s not often that you’ll hear Gervais stick up for someone associated with the “SC” Club for Growth. And you probably won’t today, either. But it does kinda suck that somebody recently “egged” the car of avowed movement conservative Joshua Gross.

Gross is the former executive director of the SC Club for Growth, and also recently did a stint working for Fred Thompson in South Carolina. He's a huge Barbecue & Politics fan. And I'm not a shrink, but he may also have a dash of paranoid delusion going on.

Gross blogged about the incident of political terrorism at his new site, the Columbia Conservative:

Fair warning - I don't intimidate easily. Hitting my car (with over 114K miles on the odometer) with the embryonic remains of a chicken isn't going to do it. Just gives me more motivation.

Well said, Joshua. Well said.

Joshua’s post is titled “The politics of intimidation,” and it should serve as a stern warning to all you “carton-carrying members of the ACLU” and Muslim egg-stremists: Joshua Gross cannot be silenced by eggs.

Gervais, however, is readily silenced for 5-10 minutes by eggs, as any Waffle House waitress along I-26 can verify. At any rate, here’s a photo of the crime scene and a police sketch of the suspect. If you have any tips, be sure to leave ‘em in the comments.

The out-of-state voucher cash rolls in

April 10^th was the due date for SC campaign finance reports, which means it’s a big day for Barbecue & Politics. If you’ve tuned in for past seasons, you know that I keep track of all this out-of-state voucher money pouring into the Palmetto State, kind of like a farmer might keep track of locusts.

Luckily, the State Ethics Commission has made it a cakewalk this year, thanks to its new online filing and disclosure system.

Needless to say, the “grassroots” voucher group South Carolinians for Responsible Government is dutifully funneling this outsider cash into Palmetto State races for New York City libertarian Howard Rich and friends this primary season.

Which candidates are taking this out-of-state voucher cash? Here’s what we’ve got so far:

Sheri Few, House District 79:

3/4: 188 Claremont LLC, 73 Spring Street Rm 408, NYC $1,000
3/4: 332 E 11 LLC, 73 Spring Street Rm 507, NYC $1,000
3/4: Bradford Management, 73 Spring Street Rm 507, NYC $1,000
2/28: Joseph Stilwell, 26 Broadway, 23rd Floor, NYC $1,000
2/28: John Kirtley, 339 S. Plant Ave., Tampa, FL $1,000

Bob Leach, House District 21:

3/14: Joseph D. Stilwell, 26 Broadway 23rd Floor, NYC $1,000
3/14: Yvonne Rich, 211 West Road 1, Mountain Home, AR $1,000
3/14: John Kirtley, 339 S. Plant Avenue, Tampa, FL $1,000
3/14: 332 E 11 LLC, 73 Spring Street, Rm. 507, NYC $1,000
3/14: 188 Claremont LLC, 73 Spring Street Rm. 408, NYC $1,000

Wendy Nanney, House District 22:

2/26: John Kirtley, 339 S Plant Ave., Tampa, FL $1,000
2/13: Joseph Stilwell, 26 Broadway 23rd Floor, NYC $1,000

By way of background, 73 Spring Street, NYC is the address of Howard Rich. Joseph Stilwell of New York is a director of Rich’s “U.S. Term Limits,” Yvonne Rich of Arkansas was a co-director of Rich's “Colorado At Its Best,” and John Kirtley of Tampa is chairman of a national voucher group with ties to Amway and Wal-Mart.

That’s a lot of $1000 checks flowing into small-town South Carolina races, folks – much of it through the “LLC loophole” which makes a mockery of our contribution limits. And sadly, I suspect there are some late filers out there with even more.

As the filings trickle in, you can count on Barbecue & Politics to serve them up.

Thursday THRASH Award: Carolinians for Reform

Our first recipient was a no-brainer.

I say "no-brainer" because the winner, Carolinians for Reform, is most famous for being the temporary recipient of over $100,000 in public funds, directed from the Governor’s Office late last year … which anyone with a brain could’ve told the governor was a stupid idea. (Sanford is the honorary co-chairman of a PAC run by the same guys, called “Carolinians for Change.”)

UPDATE: Frank Zanin, director of Carolinians for Reform, is also a director of Reform SC. (pdf)

But that’s not the reason Carolinians for Reform gets the first THRASH Award. After all, they returned the siphoned funds to the state, and there’s no reason to think the governor is going to make a pattern of secretly benefiting his buddies like this.

The real reason Carolinians for Reform wins the award is this, from The State newspaper in December:

The group, Carolinians for Reform, has raised $216,600 since August, according to the records…

The biggest contribution to Carolinians for Reform was $100,000 from Texas real estate executive Harlan R. Crow. Crow is also a founder of The Club for Growth, a D.C.-based advocacy group that has supported Sanford. In total, $127,000 came from out-of-state sources, including $10,000 from Fluor Government Relations and New York City resident Robert W. O'Neel III.

Fluor is a Texas-based company that does major infrastructure work. I’m thinking about using them for my back deck, but I'm still waiting on the other bids to come in.

The upshot of all this is that over half of “Carolinians” for Reform’s money actually comes from Texas.

It doesn’t seem like a “Texas” thing to do, especially considering that state’s well-documented aversion to imposter picante sauce. But then again, Texans are known for their genuine concern for the goings-on of South Carolina government, so don’t get carried away. There’s nothing untoward going on here.

We'll have to wait and see how much Carolinians for Reform and its PAC participate in the upcoming primaries, but you can bet whatever they do will be in the best interests of either Club for Growth millionaire Harlan Crow or actual Sandlappers.

Gervais says, for using the word “Carolinians” in its name while being bankrolled from Texas, Carolinians for Reform is the “lone star” of today’s awards show – and the first winner of a Thursday THRASH award.

The Howard Rich Advocacy & Shilling for Hire (THRASH) awards were created to honor "South Carolina" political advocacy groups that are controlled by, funded by, or specifically created by out of state interests under the guise of representing the actual interests and values of actual South Carolinians.

The Howard Rich Advocacy & Shilling for Hire (THRASH) awards

You may have noticed the link over there to the left called “Buying South Carolina,” with the picture of the old guy. That’s Big Apple libertarian Howard Rich, the millionaire developer who is trying to buy South Carolina, one State House seat at a time.

He doesn’t seem to like public schools, and rumor has it that it all started with a batch of bad “band fruit” in 1973.

In past seasons of Barbecue & Politics, we've mentioned Rich a time or two. But it’s not fair that Gervais picks on him all the time. So for the next few weeks, we’ll honor him.

And there is no greater honor than having an award named after you. Just ask Joseph Pulitzer, who has some sort of award named after him for something-or-other.

The Howard Rich Advocacy & Shilling for Hire (THRASH) awards were created in the same vein: to honor South Carolina’s political advocacy groups that are controlled by, funded by, or specifically created by narrow out of state interests without regard for the actual interests and values of real South Carolinians.

It takes a lot of courage to say, “Even though you are a narrow special interest from who-knows-where, I will take your stack of out-of-state cash and do my best to pass this off as a South Carolina idea.”

Gervais says, that courage should be rewarded with a good THRASH’ing. So, for the next few weeks, Thursday is "THRASH" day here at Barbecue & Politics.

Who will be the first recipient of a THRASH award?

Come back tomorrow and find out...

Playin' in Carolina

Y'all might remember reading in the newspaper last summer about a SC native who brought four of his students, young Native Americans at the St. Labre Indian School in Ashland, Montana, to the Palmetto State for a few weeks.

The students, ages 12 - 15, came from their reservation in Big Sky Country to get a taste of USC basketball camp, but they got to experience a lot more than just hoops - including their first-ever swim in the ocean.

This year, the "Playin' in Carolina" program is expanding to accommodate more camps, more campuses, and more students, including some of the female student-athletes of St. Labre. If you want to see how you can pitch in, visit this website. And read Ron Morris' great write-up of last year's visit while you're there.

More on "baloney" SC groups

GOP consultant Terry Sullivan’s assessment of why out-of-state groups like Club for Growth and SCRG weren’t able to tap into their “vast, grassroots membership” to field many State House candidates:

“That is what happens when you pretend to be a grass-roots organization but are really just a front group for out-of-state people,” Sullivan said.

“Sanford-friendly candidates don’t materialize,” John O'Conner, The State 4/6/08.

Ouch. If Terry’s not careful, he’s gonna get a bunch of phony hate letters in his mailbox courtesy of SCRG's numerous South Carolina supporters (pictured).

Smear email questions Obama's patriotism

Candidate pictured not rendering “rock salute” during classic rock anthem

B&P News - Philadelphia

The presidential campaign of Illinois Senator Barack Obama suffered a setback this week, as yet another “smear” email attack landed in the inboxes of thousands of Pennsylvania voters.

B & P News obtained a version of the email, which purports to show Obama failing to render the “rock salute” during the playing of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s rock classic “Freebird” at a campaign event late last year.

“He’s definitely not throwing the goat,” said Francis Marion University political science professor Petey Rivers, who analyzed the email for B & P News. “If this photograph was taken during the epic guitar solo, it definitely calls Obama’s patriotism into question.”

The Obama campaign disagreed, saying the photograph is taken out of context, and that neither Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator John McCain have the classic rock credentials of Obama.

“I have personally seen him hoist an ice-cold Budweiser during the Allman Brothers’ ‘Midnight Rider’ and play air guitar during Boston’s ‘More Than a Feeling,’” said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, who says he has no connection to the Bee Gees despite his high falsetto voice.

“I think full I-pod disclosure is in order.”

The email marks the second classic rock controversy of the Obama campaign. Earlier this year, rival Sen. Clinton questioned Obama’s affinity for the Doobie Brothers’ 1972 hit “Jesus is Just Alright With Me.”

"Just "alright?'" asked Clinton. "Sounds like he's a Muslim to me."

"Sewer Politics"

You gotta hand it to Republican Carl Gullick of York County. He doesn't mince words when it comes to the despicable tactics of the outsider-funded voucher vultures at South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

From today's Rock Hill Herald:

"It's sewer politics," said Gullick, who beat Democrat James Miller two years ago. "And what I've been told is, even when they know their candidate can't win, their whole motive is to discredit you and get you to quit. What I've been told is, these guys intend to ruin you."

With apologies to sewers everywhere, I don't think I've heard it stated any better.

Tom Davis: Hodges donor in his "youth"

If you know who Tom Davis is, then you get an ‘A+’ in Following Politics Way Too Closely. For those of you picking your nose in the back of class, Davis is the Sanford aide who recently resigned from his post to run for elected office. He faces Catherine Ceips in the GOP primary for Senate Seat #376 down in Beaufort. Don’t quote me on that district number.

Last week, Davis was interviewed by the good folks at the editorial board of The State newspaper about his ambitions. In the chat, which you can watch here on Brad Warthen’s blog, Davis predicts that his past political affiliations may come back to bite him.

Enter Brad Warthen, questionnaire extraordinaire:

Brad: “What you’re saying is that you have two liabilities in a Republican race: (1) you used to be a Democrat and (2) much worse, you worked for Mark Sanford.” (laughter from editors, gulping sound from Davis' throat)

Davis: “Uh, I wouldn’t characterize it that way. But um you know, it’s a fact that when I was right out of law school, um, as I think a lot of people when they come out of school are, they tend to be a little bit more idealistic and a little bit more, in my opinion, trusting of the good that can come from government.”

Amen to that. Ask any recent law school graduate (if you can drag him out of his NARAL meeting) and he’ll tell you that law school is three years of left-wing indoctrination. So nobody can fault Tom Davis for being idealistic way back when.

Besides, to hear Tom Davis tell it, what we’re talking about is a bright-eyed kid, law degree in one hand, New Coke(®) in the other, blasting “We Are The World” a little too loud from the stereo of his Delorian. No big whoop.

Warthen’s post goes on to describe Davis as “a very open, candid, straightforward, sincere kind of guy.”

While I trust Brad implicitly, Gervais decided to find out what Tom Davis meant by his political affiliations “right out of law school” by going to my favorite website, FollowTheMoney.org.

Turns out, he probably meant “1998,” about thirteen or so years after graduating from law school. That’s when he gave two contributions to the campaign of governor Jim Hodges.

Best as I can tell, Davis’ political conversion occurred sometime around 2002.

How much will this matter in District #384’s imminent GOP primary? Who knows? It sure wouldn’t matter to me, and probably shouldn’t matter to the voters of Beaufort.

Gervais says, all that should matter is whether a given candidate is an "open, candid, straightforward, sincere kind of guy."

Barbecue & Politics: The Final Season

That’s right, kids. Yesterday’s post kicked off the very last season of Barbecue & Politics.

Like all the great sitcoms (pictured) this blog must eventually end, no matter how much heartache ensues. In fact, some sources say the only reason Gervais is even dusting off the ol' keyboard is that he just needs a few more posts before he gets syndicated on the WB.

What do we have in store for the next few months? I have no idea. But I promise you this: I will probably try to post a lot of mildly interesting stuff if I’m not too busy with other things, for as long as I can, but not more than a few months.

Whether I can live up to these lofty standards remains to be seen, but if you plan to stop by, here are a few of Gervais' ground rules:

1. Counter-arguments. One of the most useful features of many blogs is the ability to make counter-arguments in the comments. This feature is unnecessary on this blog because the information is factually correct and the opinions are even more correct.

2. Profanity. Don't cuss. The word “bleep” is a useful onomatopoeic device, universally recognized as a viable substitute for an expletive.

3. Anonymity. Sure, whatever.

4. Bias. In some posts, you may think you notice a “bias” towards or against a certain politician or political group or issue. That’s because you are “biased” to think that way. You should purge your mind of this bias and approach each issue without bias, just like Gervais.

5. Advertising. Through a quasi-exclusive arrangement with Google, advertisers may reach dozens of Barbecue & Politics readers, several of whom have paying jobs, with a text ad in a 10-point font that is bound to attract customers like moths to a flame. It’s your money, but I can't imagine a better way to spend it.

6. Agenda. Undoubtedly some unscrupulous reader will accuse Gervais of having an “agenda.” Such accusations will always be met with the same unwavering response: I will pretend I didn’t hear you correctly. Did you say magenta? Addendum? Girlfriend named Brenda? I’m sorry, I just can’t understand you.

That's it for the "ground rules." Come back tomorrow, when Gervais starts "lifting the bun" on some of the most bleeped up aspects of SC politics.

It’s been a great summer here at Barbecue & Politics.

We’ve taken a look at the thing South Carolina does better than any other state … From Springfield to Garden City, Gervais has taken it upon himself to ingest vast quantities of succulent, sauce-soaked South Carolina barbecue … and let you know what I’ve found. And some readers have returned the favor, which I greatly appreciate. (Burp.)

We’ve also lifted the bun on the other thing that Sandlappers are passionate about… good old-fashioned, homegrown, pick up the cell phone and threaten to kill your estranged wife’s boyfriend, resign and take a job with the payday lenders, 90% funding from the out-of-state voucher lobby politics. Okay, so it doesn’t seem so old-fashioned and homegrown when I put it that way.

But as the summer winds down, so too must the blogging.

And here, to tide you over until the next Barbecue Season, are some pics from one of my new favorites, Kelly’s BBQ, located in "Flowertown," SC. (That's Summerville on the highway map.)

Kelly’s is a real-deal southern barbecue buffet with all the goods. You can fix your paper plate with cabbage casserole, pickled okra, fried okra, and even breakfast casserole -- next to the fried chicken, prehistoric-sized collard greens, and spice-infused pulled pork. And you can do it in a down-home atmosphere with plastic-ware, dining hall style know-your-neighbor seating and washtub lamps hangin’ down from the ceiling.

So if you need me, that’s where you can find me: at Kelly’s, and dozens of other unique 'cue joints around the Palmetto State, eating good barbecue with nice folks. And you can always hit me up with an email at gervaissbridges @ earthlink.net.

Take care!

Gervais S. Bridges

Five Questions with Mick Mulvaney

As you know, I've blogged a lot this summer about what I feel is the exploitation of SC's campaign finance laws in an effort to build a legislature that will support Howard Rich's private-school voucher bill, sometimes referred to as "Put Parents in Charge."

I've mentioned sitting legislators elected with a flood of out-of-state funding from the voucher lobby -- like Reps. Curtis Brantley (at least 86%) and Kit Spires (over 52%).

I've highlighted would-be legislators whose campaigns were almost entirely funded from out-of-state supporters of PPIC -- like Michael Letts (96%), Brad Cain (99.2%) and Roz Mir (99.8%). And of course, I've uncovered evidence that perhaps some of these folks don't actually know their names are being used as contributors to SC races, and that maybe this money doesn't really come from individual checks after all.

All this blogging was based on some underlying assumptions: that SC political races shouldn't be unduly influenced by massive amounts of out-of-state special interest money, that one person shouldn't be able to game the system because he happens to control more LLC's than the average Sandlapper, and that campaign contribution limits are meaningless if they don't really limit anything.

But what if these underlying assumptions are wrong?

It honestly never occurred to me that this sort of funding is the way its supposed to work, or that some people may see no problem whatsoever with this brand of politics. It's an opinion I don't share, but it's a valid opinion nonetheless, and deserves some space on this page -- along with some good humor, a solid tip on a SC 'cue joint, and some thoughts on the blogosphere.

So without further ado, Barbecue & Politics presents...

Five Questions with Rep. Mick Mulvaney

1. Let’s get right to the point, Rep. Mulvaney: Your election to the State House has meant many lunches in the Mustard Belt. Obviously, this fact more than compensates for the meager salary of a legislator. Where back home, in the Tomato Belt, do you go to get your ‘cue on?

My only regular intake of BBQ these days is the 521 Barbecue. It’s on, not surprisingly, Highway 521 in Lancaster County near Sun City. Good stuff, with free refills on the Cherry Coke, which is a characteristic trait of all great BBQ joints. They also cater a mean campaign event at about half the going rate.

2. (a) With which legislator have you worked the most during the last session?

I worked a great deal with Jim Merrill and was surprised to find out about halfway through the session that he was the majority leader, and not the dead poet. Go figure. I also worked with both Bill Herbkersman and Herb Kirsh, and can confirm that they are in fact different people.

(b) Have you made any unlikely alliances in the State House?

I teamed up with Don Bowen this year for a sort of vaudeville thing. I juggle flaming torches while he reads Shakespearean tragedies dressed as Hamlet. He looks good in the tights, but we probably aren’t ready for prime time. We might try some weddings and bar mitzvahs this off-season, though.

3. Okay, enough softballs. As I noted before on this blog, your campaign in 2006 received a $9,000 “shot in the arm” from New York voucher advocate Howard Rich, through his many LLC’s. Do you think this sort of contributing/fund-raising meets the legislative intent of our state’s contribution limits?

Two thoughts before I get to the meat of your question:

One: your question makes an assumption: that all of those LLC’s are Howard Rich --- and only Howard Rich. They may have similar addresses and other legal formalities, but there is a long way between those factors and a true alter ego. I am involved in several companies, many of which have the same address, although with different owners, officers, and directors. So be careful about jumping to conclusions.

Two: one of the greatest things about living in this country is that --- ideally --- we aren’t supposed to have to worry about legislative “intent.” In a society governed by written law, the law is what the law is. People should be able to read our laws and know what is permitted and what is proscribed, without having to delve into the netherworld of intangibles. Frankly, I find that people start to focus on “intent” when they don’t like what the law says on its face. Intent rightly becomes an issue when the law lacks clarity…not when you just disagree with it. For the times that legislative intent is validly at issue, we have a court system to perform its proper function.

That said, I have no problem answering your question: absolutely this sort of financing meets the intent.

The easy answer is to say “no,” as I assume folks believe that the “intent” of the law must be to limit the ability of certain groups to contribute to campaigns. They may think that there is some loophole someplace (probably discovered by devious trial lawyers) that politicians are “taken advantage of” with this kind of financing.

That is simply not the case. There is no loophole. It is a cavernous void, so obvious that the only reasonable assumption can be that the Legislature – and I wasn’t a legislator then – did not intend to limit this kind of financing. Indeed, if limiting multiple corporate donations was in fact the intent, it is hard to imagine a law that does a worse job of articulating that.

The definitions in the law make it painfully clear that separate companies, including LLC’s, are treated as separate entities, just as members of one family --- spouses, emancipated children, etc. --- are treated as separate individuals. Clearly, the folks who wrote that law knew full well what would happen: money would come from children, corporate subsidiaries, and multiple LLCs. It’s hard, given the express language, to argue anything else. The Legislature went so far as to distinguish between contributions from emancipated and unemancipated children. Clearly, it could have done the same on related corporate entities. Similarly, many states prohibit contributions from corporations entirely. Our legislators chose not to apply that bright-line rule. I can only assume – and I think reasonably – that they did (or did not do) those things on purpose.

Before anyone decries that position as being overly legalistic, consider an analogous “reform”: the rule changes on lobbying. There, the law is so detailed that the law is actually referred to as the “No Cup of Coffee” law. There is no need to delve into intent, and if there was, that intent would be manifestly clear. Put another way, if the Legislature had wanted campaign finance “reform” to equate to the “$1000 From Any Source” law, they had not only the ability to do so, but also had a ready model available to them.

And I am glad they didn’t as I am not particularly fond of so-called campaign reform laws. Indeed, I think financial limitations are an affront to free speech and create unfair disadvantages for candidates with less personal wealth. In my own race, for example, my opponent was apparently not in a position to provide significant funds to his campaign. However, that his wealthy next door neighbor --- who might have shared his same political philosophy (as misguided as it was) – couldn’t give him $5000 or $10,000 or $100,000 just stuns me. If his neighbor wants to see liberalism prevail, it is a travesty to prevent him from seeking to do so. Look at it this way: if the rich neighbor ran for office himself, he could contribute $2,000,000; if he didn’t, he could contribute $1000. Something is terribly wrong with that dichotomy. Campaign finance “reform” has moved us one step closer to a system where only super-rich candidates are viable --- and that smacks of an aristocracy.

I feel so strongly about the evils of campaign finance limitations, by the way, that I actually sent back one campaign contribution last year: $1000 from John McCain. I had just finished writing a critique of McCain-Feingold when the check came in. Here was a man who, on one hand, was saying that the Bill of Rights was a secondary priority, and that “money corrupts” --- and on the other hand was sending me money. I am not easily offended. That offended me.

Campaign finance reform should be renamed the “Incumbent Protection Act.” That is the only thing it accomplishes. Along with gerrymandered districts, it represents one of the most serious long-term threats to our republican system of government.

Come to think of it, it strikes me that protecting incumbents – and not limiting multiple contributions — may well have been the true intent of the campaign finance reform movement. It makes more sense, at a lot of levels.

4. Whose responsibility is it, if anyone’s, to ensure compliance with state election laws? Candidates? Consultants? Ethics Commission? Bloggers?

I haven’t looked as closely at this issue, but I would think it is fairly self-evident: the candidates are always responsible for their own actions; the ethics commissions (including those in the House and Senate) are responsible for enforcement. Beyond that, consultants are probably just responsible to give good advice to their clients, especially when it comes to the bizarre and often counter-intuitive reporting processes. Bloggers play the same role as other media.

5. New media. South Carolina Politics. What are the possibilities?

Endless. But right now it is its own worst enemy. Too often the new media seems to start off with great promise, only to devolve into anonymous defamation. That is especially true of the comments on blogs. The bloggers themselves are often serious about their work – although they obviously vary in style (which is part of what makes the medium so attractive.) But it seems that good investigative work is often overshadowed by banal chatter in the commentary. It is intended to undermine the credibility of the source, but the effect is to undermine the credibility of the entire form of media. The entire blog turns into a discussion about the blog itself — and its authors, and their styles --- and not about the substance of the matters presented. That is where we are missing the opportunity.

For example, I have had serious (and non-anonymous) exchanges on the substance of issues with you, Will Folks, and a handful of other bloggers – the same as I would with John O’Connor or Jim Davenport. For that I have been slammed in commentaries. (Indeed, I expect to get hammered just for having this interview.) That sort of attack just undermines the whole endeavor. Can you imagine the chilling effect if someone who talked with The State was accused of various thought-crimes the next day in the Rock Hill Herald for just having had the conversation? This is – or can be – a valid form of media. All sides should treat it as such.

If the commentary got better, I think you would see a spiraling-up effect, where the authors would improve, and the two components would reinforce each other in turn. We are a ways from that yet. If we get there, though, I think you will see this form of media eclipse old-style print media. The interactive component provides that much of an advantage.

I hope to be able to put my money where my mouth is, by the way. I will be introducing my own blog later this month. I hope that I can contribute some meaningful commentary to various debates – although I will leave BBQ to you. We’ll see if I can deliver something of quality.

***Thanks, Rep. Mulvaney, for sharing your views with B&P.

What's in a number?

As you know, Gervais has been going through one of his new favorite websites, researching his favorite voucher groups in the Palmetto State, and coming across some pretty interesting stuff.

Of course, the most telling item was SCRG’s earliest tax return, which inadvertently gave the phone number of Howard Rich’s “US Term Limits” (847-657-7251) as its phone listing. Note to self: if I ever start a bogus, grassroots group in another state (I’m leaning towards Rhode Island) make sure I use a local phone number instead of my own.

But after poking around some more, I found that SCRG wasn’t the only Howard Rich prop-up to use that Illinois phone number. (click on picture for larger view)

For instance, if you lived in Phoenix circa 2004, you had to dial long distance to reach “Arizona At Its Best.” If you lived in Boulder and had a hankerin’ to speak to “Colorado At Its Best,” you also had to phone the Land of Lincoln. Howard Rich, of course, was director of both groups. (pdf) (pdf)

You could also dial 847-657-7251 to reach "Club for Growth State Action," a group which "establishes and supports" seven state affiliates, including the SC Club for Growth. Howard Rich is listed as the president of the group. (pdf).

That’s when it occured to me that over the last few weeks, I’ve neglected one of the vouchin’-est voucher groups in the state (and let’s face it, huge fans of Barbecue & Politics) the SC Club for Growth.

According to the SC Secretary of State’s website, the Club for Growth sets up shop at 3020 Devine Street these days. That’s the same address that SCRG and the Center for Grassroots moved to earlier this year.

I guess that makes it easier for whoever writes the rent check.

But more “SC, grassroots” voucher groups controlled by Howard Rich? Yawn. That’s yesterday’s news.

The best thing about these tax filings is that they reveal the connections between Rich and his roster of out-of-state contributors to SC voucher candidates.

There’s Yvonne Worseley of Mountain Home, AR. You actually won’t find her name on any SC disclosures, but “Yvonne Rich” of the same address gave over $10,000 to SC voucher candidates in 2006. Yvonne is listed as a co-director of Colorado At Its Best. (pdf)

There’s Joseph Stilwell of NY, NY. He gave $37,500 to SC candidates who supported Put Parents in Charge in 2006. He’s a co-director of U.S. Term Limits. (pdf)

There’s Eric Brooks Bala Cynwyd, PA. He contributed $46,000 to voucher candidates in SC last year. Not only that - his wife, Donna Brooks, gave $36,000. Brooks co-directs the “Parents in Charge Foundation,” (pdf), chaired by Howard Rich.

And there’s more, so much more. But here’s my question… Are these folks really parting with up to $80,000 of their household earnings to influence SC political contests? Does that seem likely to you? Or is this just more funny money, like the $1,000 Thomas Simuel didn’t really contribute to Curtis Brantley, yet was attributed to him on Brantley's financial disclosures?

Maybe I'll call these folks, long distance, and find out.

A legislator with 94% out-of state funding? Believe it, SC.

Have you ever given away $1,000 without knowing it? I haven't either. That’s what makes this next story so interesting.

I’ve mentioned the campaign funding of Rep. Curtis Brantley a few times now on this blog. Rep. Brantley, as you recall, got 84% of his 2006 funding from a roster of out-of-state voucher supporters, edging out his opponent by fewer than 200 votes.

As you know by now, I find this brand of politics to be nothing short of appalling. It’s an outright purchase of a legislative seat by an out-of-state interest. It’s a perversion of our political system, and it’s happened in several districts around the state, with even more money (although never at such a high percentage).

It’s part of an overarching agenda to pack the South Carolina legislature with enough votes to pass anti-public education ideologue Howard Rich’s scheme known as Put Parents in Charge.

And it’s actually worse than it seems, at least in the case of Rep. Curtis Brantley.

When I revisited Rep. Brantley’s figures recently, something still didn’t seem right about them. It wasn’t the out-of-state funding this time, though. This time, it was the in-state funding.

Brantley received only $3,410 in funding from inside the Palmetto State. The lion’s share of this funding was two $1000 checks: one from a man named Thomas Simuel, and the other from a lady named Tammie Gilchrist.

For those of you who haven’t been following these new voucher subgroups, Thomas Simuel is the president of the SC Center from Grassroots (SCCG), the organization that shares an office with South Carolinians for Responsible Government (SCRG) and received about a half-million dollars in mysterious funding in 2005. Thomas Simuel took the reins of SCCG from a guy named Stephen Gilchrist, whose wife is named Tammie.

Thomas Simuel may be neck-deep in pushing the SCRG voucher plan, and he wears a nice enough suit, but to me, he didn’t seem like the type of person who would write a personal check for $1,000. At least not to fund a State House candidate who wasn’t even in his district. Neither did Tammie Gilchrist, a public school teacher.

Sensing something was awry, Gervais decided to call Mr. Simuel. After about a dozen calls (one of which was inadvertently answered by the SCRG secretary instead of the SCCG secretary) I finally got in touch with him.

I started by asking Simuel where the $489,000 in SCCG funding came from. He said he wasn’t president of SCCG at the time, so he had no idea. Regarding Howard Rich, he said, “I couldn’t tell you who Howard Rich is … I’ve only heard his name in the papers.”

Mr. Simuel explained that he’s been doing “strictly (c)(3) work” that isn’t very political. This, of course, is shorthand for 501(c)(3), the IRS designation for non-profit organizations.

So I asked a natural follow-up: “Have you ever contributed to a political candidate?”

“Never more than a hundred dollars or so,” he said. Hmmm.

“Do you know who Rep. Curtis Brantley is?” I asked.

Mr. Simuel said he didn’t want to have any part of the interview if I was going to attack Rep. Brantley, someone he considered to be an honorable man. I assured him that I have no opinion of Rep. Brantley as a person or a representative.

Then I asked the question I wanted to ask all along: “Did you contribute to Curtis Brantley in 2006?”

“No,” Simuel said confidently.

So I dropped the bomb. I asked Simuel if he was aware that his name was listed among the $1,000 contributors to Brantley’s 2006 campaign. Suddenly, and awkwardly, he changed his story.

“Like I said, I probably gave Curtis some money.”

“Hold on now,” I replied. “That is not what you said. You said you didn’t give him any money. You said you never gave more than a hundred dollars or so to anybody.”

“Like I said, I probably gave him some money,” he repeated.

“Wait a second, I heard what you said. You specifically said you didn’t give Curtis Brantley any money and you said –“

[click]

Mr. Simuel had hung up.

I had caught Mr. Simuel doing something the voucher lobby rarely does regarding their funding: telling the truth -- that he didn’t contribute $1,000 to Curtis Brantley in 2006. And I bet, if I asked any other $1000 contributor on the list of Brantley funders, they couldn’t point to a stub in their personal checkbook either.

Because that’s not how this double-dealing campaign finance operation works, folks.

Candidates who are willing to vouch for Howard Rich’s Put Parents in Charge plan don’t get a measly $1,000 at a time. That kind of chump-change is for suckers who follow SC ethics laws, like the handful of former lawmakers who didn’t make the cut in this year’s edition of the legislative manual.

Instead, what most likely happens is this: First, SCRG/SCCG funnels a voucher candidate $10,000, ten times the legal limit, from a slush fund of out-of-state money. Then, SCRG/SCCG consults a list of names (generally out-of-state folk and Howard Rich-controlled LLC’s) and magically turns that $10,000 into ten "separate" contributions. Repeat until elected. That's how an outsider special interest buys a seat in the SC Legislature, to the tune of 84% make that 94% out-of-state funding.

And occasionally in this whole process, some of these contributions are attributed to people like Thomas Simuel.

People who gave away $1,000, without even knowing it.

One more reason not to vote for Dennis Kucinich

No, not the tall piece of arm-candy he somehow landed as his wife. He gets "mad props," "big ups," and a hardy "kudos" for that.

It’s the shirt.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m sure there are good reasons not to eat 'cue. Like, your stomach lacks the enzymes to break down the barbecue AND you cannot find a friend to swallow, digest, and regurgitate it for you.

But I bet Dennis Kucinich has got the enzymes. I bet he’s got plenty of them enzymes.