By Lindsay Street, Statehouse correspondent | Ethics reform came in like a lion as lawmakers reconvened in January, but it could depart the session like a lamb – tamed as lawmakers pivoted to other issues such as utility reforms.
“Anything that has controversy to it is dead at this point if it’s not in the other body,” S.C. House Ethics Chair Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, said. That due to two items. First is the coming House floor debate on the state’s 2018-19 budget, which is set to start March 12. And second is the looming April 10 crossover date, the unofficial deadline for passing anything controversial and sending to the other chamber.
Even sponsors of ethics bills are leery they will get much further beyond committee.
“There’s a good reason why a lot of things aren’t getting a lot of traction this year and it’s SCANA, SCANA, SCANA,” S.C. Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, told Statehouse Report, referring to the corporation’s utility South Carolina Electric and Gas and its majority stake in a $9 billion nuclear expansion albatross that was canceled last year. The canceled project has led to lawmakers considering and passing legislation aimed at reforming how utilities and their government watchdog operate in the state. “It’s taking up most of the oxygen in the room.”
According to a Winthrop poll this week, 84 percent of S.C. respondents said they would support requiring members of the state legislature to disclose the source of their income. Current ethic laws in South Carolina require members of the S.C. Legislature to only report their income.
“Hopefully there is going to be a little different appetite for it in the future because the public is really demanding it,” Clary said. Clary has a bill in the House Judiciary Committee that would require lawmakers to report their income sources. The bill has not been scheduled for a hearing since it was filed last year.
Hard to get anything moving on ethics
“It has been incredibly hard to get anything going this session other than utilities,” said Lynn Teague of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina. “Everybody understood at the time that (ethics reforms in 2016) were very partial … It badly needs to be addressed.”
In 2016, lawmakers passed a bill that allowed independent investigation of income disclosures.
For this session, the League has been vocal about passing bipartisan bill, H. 3514, which would end undisclosed election campaign money – also known as dark money – and other legislation that would require lawmakers to disclose sources of income. There are other bills that would also require limiting campaign donors from holding office.
Teague said the ongoing Statehouse corruption probe and the lack of a trial in a case against former Lexington County Rep. Rick Quinn were illustrations that reform in the state “badly needs to be addressed.”
But some lawmakers say there’s no need to hurry and pass further ethics reforms beyond the 2016 reform.
“It would not be prudent to pass further legislation when what we got in place is still not fully implemented,” Pitts said. He added that he would also like to see the new head of the State Ethics Commission get more of a handle on what the agency needs in the future. Meghan Walker, an assistant solicitor in Richland and Kershaw counties, was named director of the watchdog agency last month.
S.C. Senate Ethics Committee Chair Paul Campbell, R-Berkeley, agreed with Pitts and Clary that ethics reform is likely dead for the session. He added that utility reform could have broader impact on citizens and that meanwhile, more attention should be paid to enforcing current ethics requirements.
Clary was undeterred about the loss of momentum.
“It’s a marathon rather than a sprint,” Clary said. He added that last time the state passed ethics reform – the 2015-2016 session – it took several sessions to finally get it through. “If I’m fortunate enough to come back next year, it’s something I’ll file again.”
- Have a comment? Send it to: feedback@statehousereport.com.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!