SCHotline

Yes you read the headline right Brian Haskins has filed for County Council against Dr. Bob Taylor. As you may know Wendy Nanney is running against Gloria Haskins. Wendy is the daughter to Dr. Bob Taylor.

We also have confirmed that NO REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT has filed against Rep. Philip Shoopman and Dan Hamilton.

Also for the first time in 120 years the Greenville County Republican party has a FULL slate of candidates running in EVERY race.

In Spartanburg no Republicans or Democrats filed today. So this leaves Rita Allison with no oppostion from either the Democrats or the Republicans.

County Councilman Joe Dill has bowed of the State House race against Harry Cato. At a press conference earlier today Dill and Cato pledged to work along with Senator in waiting, Phil Shoopman.

Stay tuned for more details coming as they happen here at SCHotline.com. We will be updating on Sunday when filing closes at noon.

I received the following press release from Rick Beltram today.

PRESS RELEASE

SPARTANBURG- After extensive investigation, a challenge is being posted to the eligibility for Eric Hayler to be a candidate for HD#37. He filed last week with the Spartanburg Democratic Party. This was confirmed and reported by the Spartanburg Herald Journal.

The rule is very clear that a candidate for the State House MUST be a resident of the district at the TIME of FILING.

Mr. Hayler actually resides at 402 Longspur Ct. in Duncan which is in District #34.

Repeated calls by GOP officials to the Hayler residence (864-486-8883) confirmed that this address is the current Hayler residence. Although, the house is for sale by owner, the candidate resides in a location that is not within District #37.

Several pictures were taken over several days to add evidence that this residence is fully occupied. The candidate’s auto is also pictured in the driveway of the home. The Spartanburg County Republican Party asks that the Spartanburg Democratic Party to immediately “de-file” this individual as ineligible to be a candidate.

This is not the first occasion that the Democrats have filed candidates that are ineligible. Liz Patterson contended in 2006 that it is not her responsibility to “police” the candidates that come forward. As a result, the GOP has been forced to perform “due diligence” on the Democratic candidates. Other Democratic filed candidates are being reviewed for eligibility.
Filing ends promptly at noon on Sunday 03/30/08. GOP officials will be at Democratic HQ at that time to assure that election law is properly executed.

For more information, please call Rick Beltram (864-590-7723)

###

After reading I did some research and I can’t find the code of law that requires this. I can find a code that says they must meet the requirements before the general election. SECTION 7-13-40.

The written verification required by this section must contain a statement that each candidate certified meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for office for which he has filed. Political parties must not accept the filing of any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, meet the qualifications for the office for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name shall not be placed on a primary ballot. The filing fees for all candidates filing to run in all primaries, except municipal primaries, must be transmitted by the respective political parties to the State Election Commission and placed by the executive director of the commission in a special account designated for use in conducting primary elections and must be used for that purpose. The filing fee for each office is one percent of the total salary for the term of that office or one hundred dollars, whichever amount is greater.

But on the South Carolina Election commission website it says this for the SC House and the SC Senate. Must be a legal resident of the district at the time of filing. See http://www.scvotes.org/so_you_want_to_be_a_candidate

I have sent an email to the election commission. I am awaiting their response. Until then I am asking my friends in the blogosphere to do some research and help us figure this out fro Rick Beltram. Is he right or wrong? Please post your responses below.

UPDATE:

It is not in the SC Code of law. It is in the SC Constitution Section 7.

It would be helpful for people to cite the law when they make a charge rather than have other people go out and try to find it. 

SECTION 7. Qualifications of members of Senate and House of Representatives.

No person is eligible for a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives who, at the time of his election, is not a duly qualified elector under this Constitution in the district in which he may be chosen. Senators must be at least twenty-five and Representatives at least twenty-one years of age. A candidate for the Senate or House of Representatives must be a legal resident of the district in which he is a candidate at the time he files for the office. No person who has been convicted of a felony under state or federal law or convicted of tampering with a voting machine, fraudulent registration or voting, bribery at elections, procuring or offering to procure votes by bribery, voting more than once at elections, impersonating a voter, or swearing falsely at elections/taking oath in another’s name, or who has pled guilty or nolo contendere to these offenses, is eligible to serve as a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives. However, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, this prohibition does not apply to a person who has been pardoned under state or federal law or to a person who files for public office fifteen years or more after the completion date of service of the sentence, including probation and parole time, nor shall any person, serving in office prior to the ratification of this provision, be required to vacate the office to which he is elected. (1997 Act No. 3, Section 1, eff March 25, 1997; 1999 Act No. 12, Section 1, eff April 28, 1999.)

By Jeffrey Sewell

As I sat in the Matthew Perry Federal Court House earlier this month watching my friend, Thomas Ravenel, receive his sentence on federal drug charges, I was reminded of a scene from the Academy Award-winning film, Traffic.

One of the most unflinching, unapologetic and controversial motion pictures ever made, Traffic explores America’s “War on Drugs” from multiple vantage points, including that of fictitious American Drug Czar Robert Wakefield.

“If there is a war on drugs,” Wakefield says during the movie’s climactic scene, “Then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don’t know how you wage war on your own family.”

Sitting calmly behind the defendant’s table in that same courtroom was a man I have come to know as family.

He was – and is – a good man, a successful man, a man whose goodness and success has created opportunity and prosperity for thousands of South Carolinians. And a man whose passionate advocacy of our nation’s founding fiscal conservative principles was poised to create additional opportunity and prosperity for thousands – perhaps millions – of us living in a state saddled with high unemployment, low income levels and a diminished competitive position in an increasingly competitive world.

But my friend – who also happens to be our former State Treasurer – had a secret habit.

His recreational use of cocaine not only violated our laws, it also violated the public trust we placed in him.

Perhaps better than anyone else, Thomas Ravenel knows this. That’s why he cooperated fully and truthfully with the authorities who came to know of his secret. It’s why he took immediate and decisive steps to receive the treatment he needed to cure him of his admitted addiction. It’s why he willingly accepted a sentence that many – including me – felt was too harsh and too motivated by the media’s definition of “equality,” a definition at odds with mitigating circumstances acknowledged not only by his attorneys, but by the men prosecuting him. And it’s why he’s asked to begin serving his sentence now, rather than delay it in the hopes of receiving leniency.

Through every step of his public ordeal, Thomas Ravenel has proven that his words “I not only want to apologize, I want to make amends,” have been accompanied by a genuine commitment to rehabilitate himself and restore the public confidence he has lost.

But no matter what you think of Thomas Ravenel or the sentence he received, consider these facts from a recent non-partisan Pew Center study:

• State and federal authorities currently spend $55 billion a year to incarcerate approximately 2.3 million Americans – the highest percentage in the world.

• Government spending on incarceration – adjusted for inflation – has increased by 127% over the past two decades. By comparison, higher education costs have only increased by 21%.

• Non-violent offenders – who represent about half of all incarcerated American adults – would be just as likely to avoid repeat offenses if given less-expensive punishments like mandatory drug counseling, electronic monitoring or house arrest.

Simply put, for all the talk of “justice” and “equality” that accompanied news of Ravenel’s sentencing, the truth is that as a society we are avoiding the underlying issue here – the increasing costs and proven ineffectiveness of locking up first time, non-violent offenders.

Even assuming Ravenel hadn’t admitted his responsibility, cooperated fully with authorities or voluntarily sought treatment for his drug use, he likely would still have been eligible for Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) and avoided jail time had he faced state charges. Why wasn’t he? In fact, Judge Joseph F. Anderson acknowledged in Ravenel’s sentencing hearing that it was “rare to have powder cocaine cases in the federal court system.”

“Ravenel is a good example of a defendant likely to mend his ways and become a contributing member of society again – even without a jail sentence,” a recent editorial by the Rock Hill Herald stated. “Taxpayers will spend about $15,000 a year to house and feed Ravenel in a federal prison. We question whether that is money well spent.”

It’s easy to be tough on crime, to “lock ‘em up and throw away the key.” It’s also easy to allow the media to dictate the parameters of justice as they see fit. What’s more difficult is to acknowledge that while popular and politically-expedient, such remedies do not always serve the individual to be “rehabilitated” or the society to be “protected.”

Our goal as a nation should be not only truth – but justice – in sentencing. In the case of Thomas Ravenel, justice clearly was not served.

Mr. Sewell is the principal consultant of Sewell Consultancy, a political consulting firm in Lexington County. He is also the former campaign manager to Ravenel for Treasurer and co-owner of www.SChotline.com.

Ravenel judge offers insight

Explains sentences, wonders why no new drug suspects named

The judge who sentenced former state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel to 10 months in prison explained his decision Friday by saying that anything else “would not promote respect for the law.”

He also wondered why more figures haven’t been named in the nine months since the state and federal investigation of Charleston’s social cocaine scene broke loose.

“It is perplexing to the court that the government could not present a single name of an individual to which Ravenel’s substantial assistance led,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson Jr. wrote in court papers.

The comments come from sentencing memorandums filed one week after Anderson gave both men nearly identical 10-month prison terms.

The documents, filed in Columbia, largely expand on statements Anderson already made from the bench, but further explain his reasoning in connection with federal sentencing guidelines and requests for leniency.

Ravenel, of Charleston, faced one charge of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine for sharing the drug with friends. His legal team and prosecutors have described him as continuously cooperative in the probe.

Mount Pleasant deejay Michael Miller, 26 — Ravenel’s coke supplier — faced two charges, conspiracy and possession to distribute.

Despite authorities’ claims that Ravenel cooperated with them, Anderson pointed out inconsistencies covering Ravenel’s explanation of when he first began using cocaine.

In one early report from a state agent, Ravenel said he first experimented with powder cocaine in 2002, and later repeated that his drug use was something that was recent.

“A couple of years ago, I became friends with a group of ‘new friends,’ ” Ravenel is quoted as saying. “They were young and exciting. We went to bars and did things, cocaine. I knew that I should not be associating with these people. I wanted to be friendly with them. I exercised poor judgment in being with them and using cocaine.”

But another entry says Ravenel stated he began using when he was 18, and then sporadically between 1981 and 2005.

“The court found it disputable that Ravenel was completely forthcoming in his initial interview,” the judge wrote.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors also asked for leniency based on Ravenel’s cooperation so far, though authorities have declined to give specifics about their ongoing probe into Charleston’s cocaine scene, partly out of fear of divulging key information in open court.

The delay in announcing more cases was noted by Anderson. Only three figures have been named so far: Miller, Ravenel and local wine expert Pasquale Pellicoro, who is believed to have fled to Europe.

The 10-month sentence that Anderson gave was toward the lower end of the 8 to 14 months Ravenel faced, with all his benefits factored in.

He left open the possibility of a further reduction if his assistance leads to more cases.

Anderson also noted that even though the cocaine use was relatively minimal, because it was used inside the home of a state constitutional officer “to not impose a custodial sentence would not promote respect for the law.”

Miller, who goes by the street name “Hash,” was credited for turning in Ravenel during the first time he was approached by law enforcement.

“By implicating Ravenel, Miller arguably placed himself at odds with one of South Carolina’s most politically prominent and powerful families,” Anderson wrote in court documents.

Ravenel is a son of former lawmaker and congressman and current Charleston school board member Arthur Ravenel Jr.

The judge added, “To someone like Miller, who admits to daily drug use, has never maintained a permanent job, reports no assets and lives with his parents, the decision to implicate a member of this state’s power structure obviously required a degree of resolve that the court determined should be rewarded.”

Ravenel was a rising star in the Republican Party until his indictment on the drug charge last year, forcing him from office. In the week since his sentencing he and Miller have both asked to report to prison early.

They will report to a federal prison as close to Charleston as space allows.

Reach Schuyler Kropf at skropf@postandcourier.com or 937-5551.

By Staff Reports · heraldonline.com FTP
Updated 03/20/08 - 1:06 AM |

Comment on this story

Under current federal guidelines, the sentence handed down last week for former state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel for distributing cocaine seems fair. The larger question, however, is whether the justice system can come up with more creative ways to deal with non-violent drug offenders such as Ravenel.Ravenel, who resigned as treasurer soon after his arrest in June, will spend 10 months in federal prison, pay a $250,000 fine and repay the state the $28,000 cost of electing his successor. Ravenel initially was charged with distributing up to a pound of cocaine, but in a plea agreement, both sides settled on distribution of less than 100 grams, or about a fifth of a pound.

That made him eligible for a lighter sentence. He could have received up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine, although the recommended punishment under federal sentencing guidelines is 10 to 16 months behind bars and a $250,000 fine.

In announcing the sentence, U.S. District Judge Joe Anderson cited evidence that Ravenel had thrown at least 30 parties where he handed out cocaine to friends and used it himself.

“I’m not going to treat him any better than anyone else nor … worse than anyone else,” Anderson said at the hearing.

Before sentencing Ravenel, the judge gave codefendant Michael L. Miller — a 26-year-old self-employed disc jockey from Mount Pleasant who allegedly sold Ravenel cocaine at least five times — the same 10-month sentence. No fine was assessed because, Anderson said, Miller was too poor to pay it.

Miller may end up doing more time. He was arrested three days after his plea on charges of assaulting a Mount Pleasant police officer. That case still is pending.

Nonetheless, the evenhanded sentencing of the wealthy scion of a Charleston political family and the man who sold him drugs is appropriate. While Ravenel didn’t sell cocaine, he bought and distributed large amounts of it, which is not far removed from dealing.

But is society best served by putting Ravenel in jail? A recent report by the Pew Center on the States found that the United States has the highest prison population and the highest rate of incarceration in the world. More than 2.3 million Americans are behind bars at a cost to the states of about $50 billion a year. And many of those prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders like Ravenel.

Judge Anderson offered what may be the best rationale for sentencing Ravenel to prison: Respect for the law. He argued that the public would have perceived a miscarriage of justice if Ravenel, with his wealth and social standing, had not been given a prison sentence.

But the argument for more inventive sentencing applies not only to the privileged but also to the low-level offenders on the street. Why not offer both a closely supervised probation program with public service and mandatory drug treatment? For those who lack skills to find a job, include education and job training.

Anderson is right in saying that Ravenel deserves no special treatment. But Ravenel is a good example of a defendant likely to mend his ways and become a contributing member of society again — even without a jail sentence.

Taxpayers will spend about $15,000 a year to house and feed Ravenel in a federal prison. We question whether that is money well spent.

IN SUMMARY

Is society best served by sending Ravenel and other nonviolent drug offenders to prison?

What do you think about this editorial? Come to community.heraldonline.com and tell us.

This is not justice – this is reverse discrimination at its worst. Frankly, I think it’s a sad day when we let the NAACP or any other organization dictate terms to the federal bench – on a case that would have never been in the federal court system to begin with were it not for Thomas Ravenel’s prominent public position.

On the one hand, we have a defendant who cooperated fully with the authorities, who sought treatment for his personal problem and who was never alleged to have sold drugs, yet he receives ten months in a federal prison and a $250,000 fine – the latter simply because he can afford it.

On the other hand, we have a drug dealer who after his arrest struck a police officer, skipped a drug test and attempted to compromise an ongoing investigation – and yet he gets the same penalty minus the fine.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but today the facts of this case were thrown out the window and a decision was made based on race and social position. We are all supposed to be equal under the law, but today inequality ruled in Judge Anderson’s courtroom.

Jeffrey Sewell

SCHotline received the following letter sent to S.C. House Members yesterday outlining S.C. Club for Growth’s agenda on spending.

March 10, 2008

Dear Friends in the South Carolina House of Representatives,

On behalf of our Board of Directors and over 600 members around South Carolina, thank you for your continued service.  I want to briefly take an opportunity to let you know our thoughts and goals for the 2008 state budget, and further, the legislation that we’ll be scoring on behalf of our politically active membership.

But first, I’d like to commend your efforts on restructuring last week.  We firmly believe that South Carolinians deserve to decide on this important issue and hope the Senate will pass similar legislation.  We’re also hopeful the House will move on Department of Administration legislation, due to the potential for huge savings, improved service and more accountability.

Your efforts last week were a great start in creating a modern, streamlined state government.  The government model created by our 1895 Constitution has led to little accountability and huge financial waste, and needs structural changes for the realities of the 21st century.  Inefficiencies have led to a total cost of government that is above the national average and in the past few years, studies show that hundreds of millions of dollars could have been returned to taxpayers’ pockets.

The South Carolina Club for Growth is a homegrown organization of fiscal conservatives and small-business owners dedicated to protecting those taxpayers.  Our state’s small-business owners work every day with certain truisms that we think have been missing from the state budgeting process, and I’d like to share them with you:

A Common Sense Approach to Spending

No business would hugely increase spending in consecutive years and cut it the next.  The previous three budgets raised spending by over 40% and some may argue over the numbers, but the National Association of State Budget Officers ranks South Carolina’s recent spending increase as well above the national average.  Especially given the recent economy, we ask that you pass a proviso to limit spending at population plus inflation for sustainable but reasonable growth.

Don’t Spend One-Time Money on Recurring Items

Most responsible households wouldn’t receive a one-time windfall and spend it on a ten-year lease of something like a Rolls Royce.  But that’s exactly what previous state budgets have done.  The 2007-2008 budget contained $270 million in annualizations, effectively creating a $270 million hole in the 2008-2009 budget.  In the current economic conditions, this is a risky scenario.  We ask that you greatly reduce annualizations.

Spend Money on Core Functions

Whether in good times or bad, it’s critical that any business invest in core functions.  Parks and festivals undoubtedly improve quality of life, but it is now apparent that the Competitive Grants Program, according to newspaper editorials, has become a slush fund for political influence.  The program, under the Budget and Control Board, continues to lack any reasonable measure of oversight and the program’s $18,500,000 in carry-forward funds should be used to address unfunded liabilities or returned to taxpayers.

Voters are tired of wasteful pork spending at both the state and federal levels and the Competitive Grants program only reinforces their suspicion of government spending.  We call on the South Carolina House to end the competitive grants program.

Don’t Borrow Beyond Your Means

South Carolina’s $20 billion in unfunded liabilities pose a serious threat to the fiscal stability of our state.  Currently, we have a $10 billion retirement system liability and a $10 billion retiree health insurance liability (OPEB). Combined, these liabilities are greater than the state’s annual general fund collections and could be passed on to future generations through higher taxes or reduced benefits.  Baby steps were taken last year, but we call on the House to put even more recurring and non-recurring revenue toward unfunded liabilities.

Be Smart About Raising Prices (As A Last Resort)

We support efforts to lower South Carolina’s uncompetitive top marginal income tax rate of 7%.  Governor Sanford’s 3.4% flat-tax proposal to reduce personal income taxes with an increase in cigarette taxes is a great start, but too modest.  The House should consider across the board tax decreases in order to spur economic growth and in turn, create jobs.  These reforms would be especially important as the state’s economy follows national slowdown trends.

The South Carolina Club for Growth believes any proposal to raise cigarette taxes must be accompanied by a reduction in taxes elsewhere, as it is simply unbelievable that one year after $1.3 billion in new revenue, the state would need even more.

Don’t Help Your Competition

No intelligent business would send money to a competitor.  But with incentives for “extraordinary retail establishments” that’s exactly what’s happening.  It’s outrageous to ask locally owned and operated South Carolina businesses to subsidize out of state corporations.  Businesses like Cabela’s are certainly welcomed to invest in South Carolina, but they should compete without a state handout.  We call on the House to end these unfair incentives.

Never Over-Pay for Services

Even when state coffers are flush, we need to be more prudent with tax dollars.  Paying for a benefit without limits, like our unlimited chiropractic service with no medical criteria, is simply wrong.  Last year, over 125 patients (out of over 300,000) spent over $10,000 costing the state over $23 million.  We’re not against chiropractic care, but no responsible business owner would subject his operation to such high variable costs.  Any accredited chiropractors willing to join the state health network should follow a specific set of guidelines in order to receive state business.  We call on the South Carolina House to reform this broken system.

***

We hope you agree with these common sense approaches to government.  On behalf of our members, we’ll be closely monitoring these items as well as other tax and spend issues.

The South Carolina Club for Growth will continue to push for better government, increased economic growth and more money for families and small businesses whose budgets are not growing nearly as fast as our governments.’  I hope you’ll join us.

Please feel free to contact me any time at Matt@SCClubForGrowth.com or by phone at (803) 454-1134.  You can also learn more about our mission at http://www.SCClubForGrowth.com.

Cordially,
Matt Moore
Executive Director
South Carolina Club for Growth

To the South Carolina blogosphere:

This is Anthony Palmer from The 7-10, home of intelligent and independent political analysis and commentary.  I’m writing to tell you about a scholarship contest I entered for political bloggers sponsored by College Scholarships.org.  Well, my blog (www.theseventen.com) was selected as one of the three finalists!  However, because the winner of the scholarship will be determined by popular vote, this political blogger has been forced to become a politician.  So this is where I need your help.  Voting is taking place at this site:

www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/02/27/vote-for-the-winner-of-the-2008-political-blogging-scholarship/

You don’t have to fill out any forms or anything.  All you have to do is go to that site and vote for ANTHONY PALMER!  In addition to winning a $2000 scholarship to help me complete my journalism PhD studies at the University of South Carolina, the winner of this contest will have his blog featured on College Scholarships.org, a high traffic site for university scholarship information.  So if I win this scholarship, your blogs will likely receive an added traffic boost as well because you are all listed on my blogroll.  One of the other finalists (a student attending a small university in Arkansas) received an endorsement from his local newspaper and the other one is a student at Yale, so I really need some help from the South Carolina crowd.  Please spread the word and help me win this scholarship!

Thank you so much!  And please take a minute to vote for me!

Sincerely,
-Anthony Palmer