Moving forward: Edward Shumpert, Raymond Ferguson and Scott Dull of the S.C. Department of Transportation’s District 1 Bridge Crew pack up the leftover materials Thursday after completing work on the bridge replacement project on Lower Richland Boulevard. Officials said paving crews are expected today, and the bridge is expected to open soon. The section of road has been closed since being damaged by floods in early October. (Photo by Rob Thompson/SCDOT).
As of Nov. 12, the state had 80 road closures, down 85 percent from a peak of 541 closures on Oct. 5. The DOT said in this briefing that DOT maintenance crews have led most of the repairs, but 23 highway/bridge contractors have been hired to help wit 65 “emergency/spot repairs” in 16 counties and 10 bridge replacement and major projects in four counties.
IN THIS ISSUENEWS: The tale of two brands
COMMENTARY: Senate disappoints in inability to pass ethics reform
SPOTLIGHT: S.C. Association of Counties
FEEDBACK: Letters on dog column, VAT commentary
SCORECARD: From a surplus to a big hit
NUMBER: 1
QUOTE: Wild West
S.C. ENCYCLOPEDIA: Operation Lost Trust
NEWS
State, regions spend millions to promote tourism
A tale of two brands
By Bill Davis, senior editor
NOV. 14, 2015 | The state of South Carolina spends $5 million to $7 million annually to boost tourism, a juggernaut of an industry that pumps $18 billion annually into its economy. But on the whole, thanks to promotional investment by regions, more than $50 million is spent advertising South Carolina’s brand.
Contrast that with Michigan, which has set aside $33 million in state money in its Pure Michigan ad campaign, which welcomes close to $22 billion in visitor and business travel dollars.
Not bad, on its face, considering that Michigan has more than two times the number of residents as South Carolina’s 4.8 million residents. But some wonder what would happen if the state did more.
South Carolina tourism
The Palmetto State welcomes $18 billion annually in tourist dollars, with nearly two-thirds of that coming from the coast stretch of the state from Myrtle Beach to Charleston to Hilton Head, according to S.C. Parks, Recreation and Tourism executive director Duane Parrish.
Parrish’s agency helps stoke the fire with between $5 million to $7 million in state advertising money. Ad buys are mainly focused on “drive-in” markets like Atlanta, Richmond and Charlotte.
Eleven regions of the state partner with local businesses and private investment to further push their attractions and destinations.
Charleston, for example, spends about $14 million annually on advertising, according to Perrin Lawson of the Charleston Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. Brad Dean, the executive director of Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, said his organization spends $28 million annually.
And perhaps not surprising, considering that while Michigan has access to some great lakes, literally, South Carolina has everything from the mountains to the beach – and no really cold wintry weather.
“We have a better product, we don’t have to spend so much to sell it,” said Parrish, with a laugh.
Michigan’s approach
But is South Carolina getting the biggest bang for its fractured buck? Could relying on the state to put more forward like Michigan has bring even more tourists, or as they are called in Charleston, visitors?
Watch national television in South Carolina for an hour or two and you’re bound to catch a 30-second spot for “Pure Michigan,” a nationally recognized tourism and economic development campaign.
Featuring comedian Tim Allen’s voice, the spots hype that state’s various beauties, from downtown Detroit to the Mackinac Bridge leading into its Upper Peninsula region.
This is Pure Michigan’s tenth year, and it has become nearly as ubiquitous as similar “Virginia is for Lovers” and “What Happens in Vegas …” campaigns.
Michelle Grinnell, a Pure Michigan spokesman who hails from Grand Rapids, said her state is getting a 7-to-1 return in tax dollars on its tourist advertisement investment.
But this isn’t a completely clean comparison, as Pure Michigan has 45 regional partners chipping in anywhere from $20,000 to $500,000 annually to augment its spending – those areas include Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, and Detroit, which also self-promotes independently.
More funding could yield a bigger tourism bang
“I think the [SCPRT] has done a remarkable job and could certainly deliver more if given more funds,” said Dean, adding that the three coastal areas have flourished despite their proximity to each other.
Each of the three areas — Myrtle Beach, Charleston, and Hilton Head – attract distinct portions of the tourist market, without eating into each other’s customer base, according to Dean.
Parrish echoed Dean’s point, saying there have been more instances and opportunities to collaborate than to compete between the three coastal regions.
Dean argued that the down side to more state tourism dollars is less control on a local level, wherein what makes those locales special could get washed out with a broader stroke campaign.
State Rep. Alan Clemmons (R-Myrtle Beach) said there are major differences between Michigan’s tourism dollars and the Grand Strand. Michigan, he said, has no distinct tourist destinations, where 38 percent of tourists stopping off in his district are first-time visitors.
Clemmons said the South Carolina model, where regions partner with private dollars to advertise to tourists, is “one of the best in the nation, and one of the most quantifiably successful.
“That is due in large part to the matching partner dollars. That private buy-in should continue to be a hallmark of our state investment. I would suggest that, as long as increased state funding is supported by that private matching investment that more funding should be considered.”
State Sen. Greg Hembree (R-North Myrtle Beach) agreed with the need to include private local buy-ins and matching funds in whatever happens to the state’s tourism advertising structure going forward. “There’s a tipping point out there, I just don’t know where it is,” he said.
Bill Davis is senior editor of Statehouse Report. Send your comments or letters to:feedback@statehousereport.com.
COMMENTARYSenate disappoints in inability to pass ethics reform
By Andy Brack, editor and publisher
NOV. 13, 2015 | It almost defies reality that the downfall since 2012 of the state’s number two and number three elected officials hasn’t yet led to major ethics reform. The once bright promise of more transparency in government is becoming dimmer every passing day.
Welcome to Statehouse politics, courtesy of the South Carolina Senate.
George Washington once remarked that the U.S. Senate was created to be a more deliberative body than its colleague, the House, where two-year terms inspire legislators to act passionately and quickly. Likening the House to a cup of hot tea, Washington asked fellow Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, who was in France when the Senate was created, “Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?” Jefferson replied, “To cool it,” reflecting a custom of the time. (I remember my grandfather sipping his coffee from a saucer for the same reason.) Washington then said, “We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
But failing to act after corruption scandals that brought down Lt. Gov. Ken Ard of Florence and House Speaker Bobby Harrell of Charleston is going a bit beyond being deliberative. It’s just plain wrong.
So here’s the back story: Legislative leaders worked hard a couple of years ago to pass comprehensive ethics reform that included elimination of leadership political action committees, better reporting of income earned by public officials and a lot more transparency, particularly with independent expenditures to influence elections.
In 2014, the House voted 101-12 to approve a 37-page conference report. But the Senate couldn’t get the job done, which kicked the can to the 2015 session. That was a new two-year legislative session, which meant everybody had to start over. The House, again, passed a bill, but when it got to the Senate, it bogged down again over two main issues — whether groups that want to influence elections must disclose donors and whether legislators should be policed by themselves or an independent group that includes legislators.
With the start of the 2016 session approaching quickly, it looks like ethics reform may be put off again.
“It’s very much an issue I want to see us act upon this session,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin, R-Pickens. “ However, I’m a realist. Unless there is a change of heart about independent investigations and third-party expenditures, I don’t see much passing except possibly income disclosure.”
State Sen. Marlon Kimpson, D-Charleston, said he wasn’t optimistic that an ethics bill would get done in the coming year.
“I voted for the [GOP Sen. Luke] Rankin plan, [but] the Republicans blocked it,” Kimpson said. “We really need a total do-over as the plans being discussed don’t get to the heart of the matter.”
State Sen. Paul Campbell, a Berkeley County Republican who also supported a bill to allow an independent panel to look into ethics allegations instead of the House or Senate Ethics committees, said the bill got filibustered last year because of “special interest” opponents who didn’t want disclosure of donors.
“We’re letting too much of special interests interfere with Senate business, in my opinion,” he said.
But it is constitutional concerns, said state Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, that led to him to oppose the proposal as now drafted.
“The ethics bill contains language that requires issue advocacy groups to disclose their contributors,” he said. “As long as that is still in there, I will do all I can to defeat it.
“This is an extreme violation of our First Amendment rights. There are several court cases that have set a precedent that contributions to issue advocacy groups should be allowed to be anonymous as it is a free speech issue. We may as well call it the incumbent protection bill.”
When asked about whether he could support ethics reform if the language regarding third-party groups were to be removed, Bryant said the bill wouldn’t pass.
“Many want this part more than anything else in the bill.”
Bottom line: It doesn’t look good again for ethics reform, despite scandals that tarred the General Assembly in a big way. But in the odd world inhabited by politicians, never say never. Get ‘er done
Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report. Send feedback to: feedback@statehousereport.com.
IN THE SPOTLIGHTS.C. Association of Counties
The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This week’s featured underwriter is the South Carolina Association of Counties.
The SCAC was chartered on June 22, 1967, and is the only organization dedicated to statewide representation of county government in South Carolina. Membership includes all 46 counties, which are represented by elected and appointed county officials who are dedicated to improving county government. SCAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that operates with a full-time staff in its Columbia offices. It is governed by a 29-member Board of Directors composed of county officials from across South Carolina.
The Association strives to “Build Stronger Counties for Tomorrow” by working with member counties in the fields of research, information exchange, educational promotion and legislative reporting.
FEEDBACKVAT would help elite, hurt poor
To the editor:
I enjoyed Senator Hollings piece on “Understanding Washington” and I agree with many of his observations. I’m far less enthusiastic about his suggestion that we institute a VAT (value-added tax) — essentially a sales tax — as a substitute for a dramatic reduction in corporate taxes. As any economist will agree, VAT, or sales taxes, are extraordinarily regressive.
The Netherlands where I lived in 2009, like many European countries, had a high VAT — 21 percent. In countries where there is a high VAT, studies show that the poorest 20 percent of the population spends nearly 10 per cent of their income on VAT, while the wealthiest 20 percent, spend only 4 percent of their income on VAT. To some extent, this is mitigated by a much more expansive social safety network financed higher maximum income tax rates in the Netherlands and other advanced European countries — from 45 percent in Britain to 70 percent in Belgium.
The regressive consequences of Senator Hollings’ proposal are compounded by a reduction in corporate taxes. While nearly half of Americans directly or indirectly (through retirement funds, etc.) own stocks, the top 5 percent of taxpayers own nearly two-thirds of all corporate stocks while the top one tenth of 1 percent own nearly a quarter of all stocks. Obviously, a reduction in the corporate tax would benefit that elite while a dramatic increase in VAT would fall most heavily on the poor and the middle class.
Value-added taxes and a reduction in corporate tax rates do have some benefits, but unless we are willing to accompany such changes with a dramatic increase in income taxes and the earned income tax credit and an enhanced social network financed by far higher tax rates on the well-to-do, we will simply exacerbate the gross economic inequality in our nation, now the fourth highest in the developed world.
— Dan Carter, Columbia, S.C., and Pisgah Forest, N.C.
Column on dog was a keeper
To the editor:
This week’s column entitled “If you want a friend, get a dog” was charming especially to all of us who receive such devoted love from our dog (and cat) pets. Thanks for this “keeper” although actually we are often enjoying your columns in general.
— Sheila Haney, Hartsville, S.C.
Send us a letter. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information.
- Send your letters to: feedback@statehousereport.com
From a surplus to a big hit
Thumbs up
Big surplus. So the state has $1.3 billion more than projected coming into this year? Let’s do something big and bold, not piecemeal or fritter it away. How about all of it to roads and dealing with the flood? Or all of it to building better schools?
Supreme Court. Glad you’ve agreed to hear a case that would expand the state’s new domestic violence law to cover unwed, same-sex couples. Everyone should be treated the same under the law. More.
Thumbs down
Haley. Political targeting of state abortion clinics by Gov. Nikki Haley went another round this week as the state’s three clinics face more proposed fines. Here’s what will happen: They’ll fix whatever minor infraction has been found. They’ll continue operating, despite the politically-motivated harassment. And then it will start all over, until Haley is out of office and, hopefully, it will stop. More.
Flood hit. The state’s tourism industry took a $35 million hit from the October floods, according to the state Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. More.
Ethics. South Carolina got a “D-minus” in the second State Integrity Investigation for its “lax ethics laws, sloppy enforcement and resistance to reform,” according to The Post and Courier. That’s up from an “F” in a similar 2012 report, but authors say they’re not really comparable because of different methodologies. See the report card.
NUMBERS#1
Not only is Clemson football ranked first in the nation, but the university is the top user of the state’s plane so far this year, according this somewhat confusing story in The Nerve. In terms of number of legs (one point to another ) flights flown from January through August, Clemson used the plan for 130 legs, followed by Gov. Nikki Haley (91 legs), the state Department of Commerce (29) and State Ports Authority (26). S.C. Rep. John King, D-York, was the legislature’s most frequent flyer with six legs.
Wild West
“South Carolina politics may be less violent today, but state legislators still cling tenaciously to doing things the old way – even when other states have moved on. South Carolina is one of only two states where judges are elected by the legislature and one of only a handful that don’t require public officials to disclose private income. As a host of reform advocates have said, South Carolina is still very much a ‘Wild West.’”
— Rodney Welch, “South Carolina gets D- grade in 2015 State Integrity Investigation.”
S.C. ENCYCLOPEDIAOperation Lost Trust
S.C. Encyclopedia | Operation Lost Trust was arguably South Carolina’s largest and longest-running political scandal. Including the investigation, trials, and retrials, the Operation Lost Trust saga extended from 1989 to 1999. The key player in the FBI’s investigation into legislative corruption was Ron Cobb, a lobbyist and former member of the S.C. House of Representatives. He was arrested in April 1989 for trying to buy a kilo of cocaine in a deal orchestrated by the FBI for the purpose of securing his involvement as the front man in the Lost Trust investigation. He told members of the General Assembly that he represented the Alpha Group that was seeking support for a bill legalizing dog- and horse-track betting in South Carolina. Cobb recruited Representatives Robert A. Kohn and Luther Taylor to help in securing legislative votes by paying members money in exchange for their support and votes. The transactions were captured on surveillance tapes.
The federal investigation resulted in the conviction of seventeen members of the South Carolina General Assembly, seven lobbyists, and three others for bribery, extortion, or drug use. All but five of the twenty-seven convictions were the result of guilty pleas. In 1991 and 1992 five legislators were granted new trials because of legal errors. U.S. District Judge Falcon Hawkins then dismissed the charges against the five for alleged misconduct by the federal prosecution team led by U.S. Attorney Bart Daniel. Judge Hawkins’s ruling was overturned in November 1998 by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the criminal charges. During the period between 1991 and 1998 two of the five legislators died after long illnesses. The three remaining defendants were retried in 1999, and all three were convicted.
– Excerpted from the entry by Jon B. Pierce. To read more about this or 2,000 other entries about South Carolina, check out The South Carolina Encyclopedia by USC Press. (Information used by permission.)
NOTE: For more recent information related to Operation Lost Trust, check out this commentary by Andy Brack from 2010.
CREDITSEditor and Publisher: Andy Brack
Senior Editor: Bill Davis
Contributing Photographers: Michael Kaynard, Linda W. Brown
Phone: 843.670.3996
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!