SC House Proposes Major Ethics Upgrade
PLAN WOULD REMOVE CORRUPT “SELF-POLICING” MECHANISM Lurking in the background of the PalYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
PLAN WOULD REMOVE CORRUPT “SELF-POLICING” MECHANISM Lurking in the background of the PalYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
30 comments
Yes, just the right tweaks here and there will fix the dysfunctional government.
True, true … and no one calls it out any better, more frequently (or more sarcastically) than this website. But this is a good step.
I agree, you do a great job.
The sooner though that people return to the Founders understanding of government, the better. Let us not pretend that any reforms “fix” government. It’s unfixable, and if it must exist it might be run under with that understanding in mind.
Crooked politicians, their supporters and handlers and feeders (staff, consultants, ad companies, web hosting companies) cringe at the thought of seeing their names in Fits (or any other print news outlet). The founding fathers would be proud of Fits.
The only way ethics reform will take place in this State is when the saw grass baskets are full of cockroach heads
I see conniving, canvassing, cavorting and caressing by egomaniacs — like the fist-fighting we see among those hoping to get onto S.C. college boards of trustees — with this proposal.
What sort of candidates do you expect to get from the state’s largest whorehouses — the legislature and the (holding my nose) judiciary? Honest brokers?
I see politically-oriented opportunists.
I favor enhanced authority of the already-existing S.C. State Ethics Commission, legislation for which has been introduced several times over the past eight years.
There’s no need to re-invent the wheel with yet another state agency / commission. The Ethics Commission has a staff (including an attorney) in place, with deep and broad understanding of state laws and, with subpoena power, everything needed to clean up the legislature.
Agreed it all needs to be under one roof. No doubt.
We would be better off filling the panel with random people off the street. You might draw a bad apple or two this way, but the chances of getting people who would actually do what they are supposed to do would be exponentially higher.
The devil is in the detail of picking those people. Our jury system is random (I was in a jury two weeks ago). But although the people on the street with me in that jury room were honest and enthusiastic about being chosen, they had jobs, families (including school-age kids), transportation issues, doctor appointments, etc. And for my jury service, I was paid ten dollars. One lady said she’d been called to a federal jury involving 25 defendants in a major drug case expected to last six months, and she got out of it. I don’t know how much time would be involved investigating the countless crooked legislators in South Carolina, but suspect it’d be two full-time, not-so-fun jobs.
Hmm, kinda like a grand jury…
I don’t know. I like the new plan. Keeping anyone who has made a political contribution off the panel would make it very difficult to stack the panel with cronies. We would need to be sure that included a prohibition on people who work for corporations who made contributions.
Yeah, but it would be easy to coordinate beforehand. I can picture someone like Harrell saying, “Jim Bob, I’m a Republican in S.C. so of course I have this election in the bag. Hold on to that campaign check so I can put you on my get-out-of-jail, err I mean, ethics panel. Hell, give me that check under the table and it’ll be all good. Ain’t like we got nothing to worry about.”
Another earth of foxes.
Those dirt bags in the House can propose all the ethic reforms they will, yet still – left and right, they will willfully and knowingly break them – and numerous statutes of law codified in the SC Code of Laws. Real reform is abolishing all forms of self policing their own, and forming a board of citizens — citizens free of political connections of any form. Only then will there be any change from the normal corrupt and criminal behavior that these tyrants (like Harrell) engage within. Remember, it is “We The People of South Carolina” … not “We The Members of the House.” All of them, they have got to be cleaned out, and Bobby Harrell must be tried in the people’s court. If he is not hauled before a criminal court, Jean Toal will fall with him and Manning and the other Harrell cronies. The people of South Carolina are forming, organizing, and preparing to show these sicko power freaks who the real owners of our government are – The Citizens! And we will prevail! Our enemy in our government will be taken prisoner.
Put down the crack pipe.
Shut up, Anonymous.
WTG Greg Delleney.
Several commentators have mentioned that a couple of their posts had been deleted or omitted, but I don’t think that is the case. Disqus gets “hinky” occasionally and I just discovered that one of my posts ended up on a different article. Anybody else notice this?
When you press “post” it turns gray to let you know it is trying to post and turns black when it is actually posted. I’ve noticed that sometimes when I post, the comment text is grayed out and never turns black, and the post never shows up if I refresh. It most likely is an issue with the comment just getting “lost” somewhere in the process of going to whatever Disqus server, or some bug or something.
Disqus can be annoying (especially when posting from a phone) but it isn’t the worst comment system. At least FITS hasn’t adopted commenting through Facebook or something equally horrendous.
Seems the more inevitable a GOP landslide becomes, based on the demand for Rejection of Obama…the more “hinky” the Internet comment sections get.
What a coincidence. LMAO….
GT, you may be right—
1) – exactly my experiences
2) – I don’t do anything through Facebook
The College of Charleston board of trustees shows how “independent” these panels are. I seriously doubt any politician would appoint someone who is hawkish on government accountability.
Charles Darby, the sole trustee who openly opposed McConnell as college president, was removed from his position by an act of the legislature which acted in response to an order from McConnell. After that, McConnell was approved unanimously. Four other trustees were privately wavering, also opposed to McConnell, but got religion when they saw Darby get his head scalped.
“This new ethics panel would be compromised of four legislative appointees”
You need to learn the difference between the words “comprise” and “compose” and, well, “compromised” too. But, yeah, I can see how it would be compromised by having legislative appointees.
If they had any Ethics, then they would not need this type of BS.
May 21, 2014: Harrell still opposed to ethics reform.
Compose the panel just as you do juries. Random selection is the way to go. Then no one can call foul.
How about appointing an ad hoc special prosecutor or Ethics Czar on a pro bono basis?
A meaningless “red herring”