The State in Columbia SC Logo

Scoppe: Time to regroup on ethics reform | The State

×
  • E-edition
    • Customer Service
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Archive Search
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Newsletters
    • Photo Posters
    • Sponsorships

  • Obituaries
    • All News
    • Local News
    • Crime & Courts
    • South Carolina
    • Business
    • Politics
    • Education
    • Military
    • State
    • Nation/World
    • Civil Rights
    • Charleston Shootings
    • Data, Weather and Traffic
    • Databases
    • Weather
    • Traffic
    • All Politics
    • The Buzz
    • SC Salary Database
    • All GoGamecocks
    • Football
    • Recruiting
    • Phil Kornblut
    • Baseball
    • Men's Basketball
    • Women's Basketball
    • Other Sports
    • Columnists
    • Josh Kendall
    • Sports
    • GoGamecocks.com
    • Clemson Tigers
    • High School Sports
    • College
    • NFL
    • NBA
    • NASCAR
    • MLB
    • Golf
    • Columnists
    • All GoColumbia
    • Entertainment
    • Celebrities
    • Contests
    • Events & Movies
    • All Living
    • Food & Drink
    • Midlands
    • Health
    • Home & Garden
    • Religion News
    • Entertainment
    • Books
    • Social
    • Place Announcement
    • Features
    • Comics
    • Puzzles & Games
    • Horoscopes
    • Special Sections
    • Living Here Guide
    • All Opinion
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Submit a Letter
    • Editorials
    • Opinion Extra
    • Columnists
    • Cindi Ross Scoppe
    • Robert Ariail
    • Business
    • National Business
    • Technology
    • Shop Around

  • Classifieds
  • Jobs
  • Moonlighting
  • Virtual Career Fair
  • Cars
  • Homes
  • Place an ad
  • Mobile & Apps

Cindi Ross Scoppe

Scoppe: Time to regroup on ethics reform

By Cindi Ross Scoppe - Associate Editor

    ORDER REPRINT →

July 09, 2013 12:00 AM

AS DISAPPOINTING as it was for the Legislature to end the 2013 session with ethics reform undone, the dilatory tactics that prevented its passage could prove to be a blessing.

The tight timeframe meant that if a final vote had been within sight in the Senate, supporters would have been tempted to give in and water the bill down even more than it already had been in order to secure the votes they needed. Debating and passing such complex legislation during the hectic final week of the session also would have resulted in mistakes that, like the mistakes made in writing the current ethics law, we could still be living with decades later.

The bill before the Senate, while better than the version passed by the House, is far from perfect. It requires legislators and other public officials to report more about who signs their paychecks, but not enough. It increases enforcement mechanisms more than the House bill does, but not enough. (Neither does more than an average job of closing the multitudinous campaign-finance loopholes.)

The Senate plan actually sets out a promising arrangement for oversight — allowing an independent ethics commission appointed by the governor and Legislature to investigate complaints against lawmakers and publicly report its findings to the House and Senate Ethics committees for action. But of course this was what drew the most objections when the bill finally hit the floor, less than 24 hours before mandatory adjournment.

Sign Up and Save

Get six months of free digital access to The State

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

#ReadLocal

And this is where the potential blessing comes in. Even as the chance of passing the ethics bill was evaporating, Senate President Pro Tempore John Courson was appointing a special panel of three Republicans and three Democrats to study the issue over the interim with a goal of crafting a new approach that can pass the Senate in January.

Obviously there is no guarantee that this panel will come up with anything workable. All three Democrats — Brad Hutto, Darrell Jackson and Gerald Malloy — worked furiously to prevent the Senate from even debating the bill last month, and Republican Luke Rankin, whom Mr. Courson named to chair the panel, delivered the final death blow when he objected passionately to the idea that anyone besides senators should review senators’ compliance with the law. But opponents, to varying degrees, say their opposition was to the rush as much as to the substance of the legislation, and support from those six would go a long way toward ensuring the Senate passes a reform measure early next session.

The key will be making it a measure worth passing.

Worth passing means that public officials are required to report the source of income for themselves, their immediate family members and business associates and, at the least, the amounts received from lobbyists, lobbyists’ employers and the government. It means closing a host of loopholes that allow people to evade campaign donation limits and hide the fact that they’re spending money to influence our vote. It means increasing the civil and criminal penalties for violating the law, giving the Ethics Commission more staff to enforce the law and requiring random audits of disclosure reports.

Most of all, it means sticking to the Senate plan, or some close variant, to let an independent entity investigate legislators’ compliance with the law, and make its findings public.

And of course this brings us back to the ostensible problem (with senators, you never can say for sure what their actual objection is to legislation they oppose, or even whether the legislation they are opposing is really the legislation they oppose): Many senators don’t want even independent investigations — much less independent enforcement — of their ethics compliance.

Opponents claim, dubiously, that a provision in the state constitution requires them to retain sole power to decide how to punish each other for violating the law. What the constitution actually reserves to legislators is the power to punish each other for “disorderly behavior,” and to expel each other for any reason. In any event, they’re certain to use the Supreme Court’s majority opinion last month in Rainey v. Haley to bolster their claim.

But contrary to the impression left by a quick reading, the court did not close the door to independent investigations; at best, it muddied the waters, with a gratuitous pronouncement that it did not support with any on-point case law. Beyond that, only three of the five justices signed the opinion that seemed to say only legislators could review legislators’ ethics. And by the time a lawsuit challenging any new law makes it to the high court, it’s possible that one or even two of the justices who signed that opinion might no longer be there.

Of course, legislators’ objection to independent investigations of their ethics has nothing to do with the constitution; that’s a pretext. If they wanted to be held accountable like all other public officials, legislators would propose amending the constitution. In fact, it would be a simple enough thing to do both: Put the independent investigations language into the law while simultaneously putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

That way, if the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, it would be so only until the amendment passed. And if the amendment failed — like that’s going to happen — then it would mean the public wants the Legislature held to a lower standard than everyone else, and that’s how it should be.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571. Follow her on Twitter @CindiScoppe.

  Comments  

Videos

See how SC church volunteers pack 18K meals for starving children in Haiti

Schools in Denmark-Olar are old and inadequate, a problem in many rural districts

View More Video

Trending Stories

Suspect arrested in possible road rage shooting near I-77 in Columbia, police say

February 20, 2019 07:44 PM

Publix is opening new market in Lexington, but it’s not your average grocery store

February 21, 2019 02:30 PM

Trevor Lawrence playing basketball? Here’s what Dabo said about intramural hoops

February 20, 2019 10:31 AM

South Carolina signee Trae Hannibal scores 62 in final high school game

February 20, 2019 10:00 PM

SC lawmaker collapses on House floor for second time

February 20, 2019 12:07 PM

Read Next

A sad good-bye. Thank you for letting me share my thoughts with you

Cindi Ross Scoppe

A sad good-bye. Thank you for letting me share my thoughts with you

By Cindi Ross Scoppe Associate Editor

    ORDER REPRINT →

August 31, 2018 03:06 PM

Cindi Ross Scoppe has been The State’s opinion writer for 20 years, providing a pragmatic approach to SC state government; she was a reporter for 10 years before that. Her last day is Aug 31. Today she says good-bye.

KEEP READING

Sign Up and Save

#ReadLocal

Get six months of free digital access to The State

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

MORE CINDI ROSS SCOPPE

How South Carolina can live up to its potential

Cindi Ross Scoppe

How South Carolina can live up to its potential

August 31, 2018 03:07 PM
We know the Legislature is all-powerful, but is it really free to ignore the law?

Cindi Ross Scoppe

We know the Legislature is all-powerful, but is it really free to ignore the law?

August 28, 2018 08:00 AM
Why James Smith is one of my two favorite candidates for governor

Cindi Ross Scoppe

Why James Smith is one of my two favorite candidates for governor

August 27, 2018 10:28 AM
You asked: Who allowed the $2.5B lottery lie, and where’s the money going? I answer

Cindi Ross Scoppe

You asked: Who allowed the $2.5B lottery lie, and where’s the money going? I answer

August 22, 2018 08:49 AM
The audit didn’t exonerate Dan Johnson, it raised more questions

Cindi Ross Scoppe

The audit didn’t exonerate Dan Johnson, it raised more questions

August 21, 2018 10:53 AM
Here’s a crazy idea: Let’s make the race for SC governor about ... South Carolina

Cindi Ross Scoppe

Here’s a crazy idea: Let’s make the race for SC governor about ... South Carolina

August 20, 2018 08:06 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

The State App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Start a Subscription
  • Customer Service
  • eEdition
  • Vacation Hold
  • Rewards
  • Pay Your Bill
Learn More
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletters
  • News in Education
  • Archives
Advertising
  • Information
  • Place a Classified
  • Local Deals
  • Special Sections
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story