Judge throws out Upstate lawmaker’s suit against SC GOP, primary challenger
A South Carolina judge on Friday threw out a lawsuit filed by an Upstate lawmaker who sued the S.C. GOP and its primary backed challenger, Vaughn Parfitt, on Wednesday over allegations the party spent beyond the state’s legal spending limits.
In her three-page decision, Aacting Circuit Court Judge Jean Toal said though South Carolina’s ethics laws include definitions for “persons” and “political party,” she wrote, “It is clear that the legislature intended to regulate persons and political parties separately,” and, therefore, the provision on personal contributions does not apply to the South Carolina Republican Party.
Toal said that, since the state law that defined political committees was struck from the state Ethics Act, “then the regulations and restrictions ... on the accepting or giving of candidate contributions of more than $5,000 are invalidated.”
In her written decision, the former state Supreme Court chief justice went on to deny Hill’s suit “on the grounds that the SC Ethics Act contains no valid provisions which restrict the giving or receiving of the political contribution at issue in this matter.”
In 2010, a lawsuit resulted in the striking of the definition of “committee” from the state’s ethics law, making all related regulations moot. In that case, the federal district court ruled that the definition of “committee” is “overbroad and facially unconstitutional,” Toal wrote in her decision Friday.
In his lawsuit filed in Richland County asking for a preliminary injunction, state Rep. Jonathon Hill, R-Anderson, alleged the S.C. Republican Party violated ethics laws by spending more than $5,000 on Hill’s June 9 primary challenger, Parfitt, by way of campaign mailers on multiple dates. Hill was represented in court by Charleston attorney Brooks Roberts Fudenberg.
Hill’s complaint said the party is limited to spending no more than $1,000 per election cycle in support of any campaign.
When asked for comment, Hill said he was still processing the court’s decision and will evaluate what he does next.
Hill said he was not prepared to respond when asked whether he planned to appeal Toal’s decision.
An eyebrow-raising move in party politics, the S.C. GOP bucked its three-term incumbent last month and sent mailers to House District 8 voters in support of Parfitt, an optometrist, who’s been backed by statewide and House GOP leaders.
That followed Hill’s suspension from the House GOP Caucus last year after leaders said they’d grown tired of his antics.
The mailers, which included an endorsement for Parfitt from South Carolina’s Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers and criticized Hill’s vote for a former judicial nominee who President Barack Obama once nominated to a federal seat, said they were paid for by the S.C. GOP and included the address of the party’s Columbia headquarters.
Each mailer states it is authorized by Parfitt, the candidate.
Both sides agreed Friday the S.C. GOP had spent more than $5,000 on mailers to boost Parfitt’s candidacy.
Asked on the stand whether the mailers were intended to advance Parfitt’s campaign, S.C. Republican Party chairman Drew McKissick said, “Absolutely.”
Attorneys for Parfitt and the party — Robert Tyson and Lisle Traywick — in their response to Hill’s suit wrote, “because the General Assembly has not enacted a new statute that revives the definition of ‘committee’ to pass constitutional muster, the Party is not constrained by the limitations on campaign expenditures ... .”
They also pointed to another provision in state law that places no limits on the party’s spending for “distribution of communications” — whether paid radio and TV ads and mailers — during the 45-day period leading up to an election.
Critics of Toal’s decision pointed to a decision between Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Richland, and the Senate GOP Caucus.
Harpootlian sued the Senate GOP Caucus in 2018 after he challenged the caucus’ spending on ads attacking him in his state Senate race against then-GOP challenger Benjamin Dunn. At the time, attorneys for the caucus had argued the law did not apply to their group, and Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, cited the same 45-day rule before an election.
But the S.C. Supreme Court ultimately sided with Harpootlian, who had argued the cost of the Senate GOP’s ads — almost $200,000 — had exceeded the state’s legal $5,000 limit on a political party’s donations.
Chris Kenney, one of Harpootlian’s attorneys in his suit, tweeted Friday Toal’s ruling was “wrongly decided.”
“Let’s be clear, when it comes to campaign finance law in South Carolina, this decision holds THERE IS NO LAW,” he tweeted.
On the definition of “committee,” Toal told Hill, “it is certainly something the Legislature needs to address.”
“I served in that body for many years,” she said. “I know how difficult it is sometimes to get corrected legislation through.”
McKissick lauded Toal’s ruling.
“We’re pleased the court saw things the same way we did, and that it recognized the party can be involved in and help out our campaigns the best way we see fit,” McKissick said.
But Dan Harvell, who sits on the S.C. GOP Executive Committee for Anderson County, said the decision means open season.
“The horse clearly was out of the barn,” Harvell said. “Now the horse is off the ranch.”
This story was originally published June 5, 2020 at 7:10 PM.
