jump to navigation

Bobby’s Shaking Down The Special Interest Money, Too December 4, 2007

Posted by fitsnews in SC Politics.
trackback

Bobby Harrell

MORE ON THE “WINK-WINK” WORLD OF LOBBYIST FUNDRAISING

FITSNews- December 4, 2007 – For all the grief we gave S.C. Ways & Means Chairman Dan Cooper for his use of lobbyists’ principals as fundraising tools, at least his people remembered to put the standard “Dear Lobbyist, wink-wink” disclaimer on the invitation:

If this solicitation was inadvertently sent to a lobbyist, please disregard.

Obviously that disclaimer doesn’t excuse Cooper’s flagrant use of lobbyists’ principals as event hosts, which is technically illegal, but it does serve as a glimpse into the cozy relationship between powerful Columbia politicians and the special interest lobbyists who assist them in raising them boatloads of cash.

Since directly soliciting campaign contributions from lobbyists is expressly forbidden by state law, campaigns use “Cover Your Ass” lingo such as the verbage featured on Cooper’s mailing (and dozens of campaign mailings like it) to make it seem completely accidental every time these fundraising pitches get sent to practically the entire directory of S.C. registered lobbyists.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but assuming that these mailings don’t specifically target lobbyists in an effort to get them to go out and raise special interest money is like assuming that political connections don’t factor into no-bid government contracts, which in turn don’t factor into hefty pay raises for the people who dole out those contracts.

Or assuming that babies really do come from storks.

Anyway, ever since we published our story on Cooper’s invite two days ago, the FITSNews’ mailbox has been blowing up with similar examples of questionable tactics, including a fundraising letter from House Speaker Bobby Harrell that neglected to include the whole “if you’re a lobbyist, please disregard this letter” charade. Here’s a look at the Harrell fundraising letter:

harrell invite

Hmmm … we wonder if that letter ended up in any lobbyists’ mailboxes? Because if it did, Bobby could have a small problem on his hands.

We know for a fact it went to several lobbyists’ principals, and while the letter didn’t specifically use the word “host” in encouraging them to “participate in this event,” it certainly appears to run afoul of the same ethics law as Cooper’s mailing.

Of course since South Carolina’s State Ethics Commission has about as much testicular mass as a female kitten, it’s doubtful any of this will ever be investigated, let alone even glanced at.

Even more doubtful is the notion that South Carolina’s ethically-challenged Supreme Court would actually do its job and weigh in on the legality of using lobbyists’ principals as campaign fundraising tools.

The end result of all this, not surprisingly, will be the perpetuation of a government spending orgy in which the lobbyists who direct big bucks to powerful politicians get taken care of and the average taxpayer ends up getting stuck with the bill.

Which is pretty much par for the course in South Carolina …

Advertisements

Comments»

1. abc123 - December 4, 2007

will,
don’t know much about politics…just curious….name a state in the union where the following is not the case:

“The end result of all this, not surprisingly, will be the perpetuation of a government spending orgy in which the lobbyists who direct big bucks to powerful politicians get taken care of and the average taxpayer ends up getting stuck with the bill.”

2. FITSNews - December 4, 2007

ABC,

50 wrongs don’t make a right …

-FITSNews

3. schotline - December 4, 2007

ABC,

Your back with deep political cerebration.

4. acb123 - December 4, 2007

no, but it eliminates the reason to imply that SC is unlike the rest of western civilization.

5. HD - December 5, 2007

Will –

There is nothing wrong with Harrell’s letter. Of course it went to Lobbyist Principals, and that’s perfectly legal. Asking them to “participate” at a certain level is nothing but asking them to contribute. As with your criticism of Cooper, you seem to want to conflate “contributing” and “hosting.” Saying, essentially, “I contributed; I will be there; and I want you there too,” is not “hosting” an event.

I agree with the spirit of your criticism and know full well that the campaign finance laws are honored more in the breach than in the observance. Pointing out the flaws in the system is useful. Accusing people of breaking laws they haven’t broken is not.

6. Angels dancing on a pin - December 5, 2007

HD scolds the sic one: “you seem to want to conflate ‘contributing’ and ‘hosting.’ Saying, essentially, ‘I contributed; I will be there; and I want you there too,’ is not ‘hosting’ an event.”

Jesus, I haven’t seen such sophistry since One L. Of course, the pithy use of the word “conflate” made me hard as a rock, as did the hackneyed honored more in the breach than in the observance.” So thanks for that.

7. HD - December 6, 2007

Angels…

If you’d made it to 2L you’d have known I was correct. I guess your infantile sexual distractions were an impediment you couldn’t overcome.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: