South Carolina AG Requests Ethics Investigation Into Sanford’s Travel

If you are going to hike the Appalachian Trail it is safer to actually hike than to travel to Argentina at tax payers’ expense. The State reports that the South Carolina Attorney General has requested ethics investigations against Governor Mark Sanford.The state Senate President Pro Tem has also stated that Sanford’s actions should be investigated:

McMaster said Section 89.27 of the general budget proviso says that violations of the proviso governing the use of state aircraft “is prima facie evidence of a violation of (the State Ethics Act) … and shall subject a state official to the applicable ethics procedure relating to them as provided by law.”

Earlier today, state Senate President pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said the Ethics Commission or S.C. House should investigate Sanford’s activities.

Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, said Monday that Sanford had violated state law by flying business class on overseas trips.

McConnell essentially warned Thomas’s Senate subcommittee to back off its investigation, saying its findings could taint other investigations.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Mike's I.P. alter-ego says:

    Been off the site awhile.
    @Ron- I did read your family note. My belated condolences for your loss.

    As far as misuse of tax payer money I for prosecution as far as they can take it against Gov. Sanford.

    I’m looking for parts of the health care bill of which you are highly supportive. I’m guessing you have already posted such if you could just reference where in the archives. I’m actually a little fearful of trying to download the whole 1000 pages on my old, weak, home computer. Hopefully just parts you find particularly beneficial.

    As far as judging a potential candidate on how a wife deals with the loss of a child, I wouldn’t put much weight to that, the other issues mentioned have more stubstance. And as you may know about me, I hadn’t even heard about this Santorum guy, but I’m liking a lot of what you are saying about him. Assuming there is some small measure of distortion-like defining “anti-immigrant” is it really about anti-immigrant or anti-illegal immigrant? I don’t know, just heard it here first.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    I haven’t posted the actal bill figuring people interested in the exact text would download it. There are several posts discussing it in the health care category. As we don’t have a final bill the posts are more on the general ideas as opposed to supporting a particular bill.

    Note that the description of Santorum comes from a Republican source. Most Democratic sources would probably be even harder on him.

  3. 3
    Mike's I.P. alter-ego says:

    I should have guessed, the shot about a personal family matter does have a certain republican style about it.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:


    Getting back to the House health reform bill, without quoting all the language, some of the good things aspects are:

    Insurance companies won’t be able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or drop coverage when someone gets sick. There will no longer be lifetime limits.

    Assistance to the poor and middle class to achieve near universal coverage.

    Increasing payment for primary care as opposed to performing procedures.

    Fix the flawed Medicare reimbursement formula. (Every year Congress has to intervene to prevent the flawed formula from kicking in.)

    Concentrate more research money to determine which treatments really work the best.

    Coverage for voluntary counseling as to options at end of life.

  5. 5
    Mike b.t.r.m. says:

    Thanks Ron, and these items, the six you mentioned,  are all, already in the House bill, waiting for the merger of a still developing Senate version? 

  6. 6
    Eclectic Radical says:

    There is a very narrow distinction, if any at all, between ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘anti-illegal immigrant’ stances. Without wishing to cast two far a net, most people in both parties who are against amnesty for illegal immigrants and for a massive investment of law enforcement resources into fighting illegal immigration are also against meaningful immigration reform vis a vis Mexico and points south. On the flip side, those in favor of comprehensive immigration reform tend to be pro-amnesty and against the ‘waste’ of law enforcement resources on border security issues or pursuing those people already here with an eye toward deportation.
    I want to repeat, this is not meant to bash conservatives or Republicans… the same fine line between anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant exist on the Democratic side of the aisle as well and the Democratic Party has not been any better than the GOP in dividing the two sides of this issue.
    The reason it is so difficult is that the current illegal immigration problem is related to post-WWII immigration policy changes that totally redefined immigration between Latin American and the US to the detriment of the large transient worker population that had always existed. These policy changes specifically targetted transient workers and Latin American immigrants exclusive of other immigrant groups.
    So because the initial policy that created the ‘illegal immigration problem’ was specifically anti-immigrant, it’s very difficult to stake out a starkly separate public policy about Latin American immigration without dealing with illegal immigration and vice versa. The reason illegal immigration is an issue is because of a policy toward Latin America that is specifically anti-immigration.
    In the specific case of Santorum, I would put him in the same category as Tom Tancredo or Virgil Goode and call him an hysterical nativist of the worst order.

  7. 7
    Eclectic Radical says:

    It is also worth noting that the (in my opinion) baldly racist policy change vis a vis Latin American immigration was undertaken under a Democratic Congress during the Truman administration. So the Democrats deserve a lot of the blame on this issue, despite the prominence of hysterical nativism (or condescending guest worker programs that would allow corporations to continue to benefit from the exploitation of cheap transient labor at a real cost to the American economy, without genuinely bettering circumstances for the laborers) on the Republican side of the aisle in the last decade or two.

  8. 8
    Mike's I.P. alter-ego says:

    @Electic- point taken, here is what I think a great example of reading opposing views. I never much considered the side of “legal immigration” issues. I just had lumped those trying to support “undocumented” people that don’t follow immigration law as pie-in-the-sky believers that the U.S. has unlimited wealth that can pay for healthcare for everyone illegally in this country and might as well pay for everyone’s needs in India and Zambia as well. Why pay to treat someone with diabetes who is here in the U.S. illegally when people are starving and dying in other places in the world? But now that you get me thinking that there may be a better way to structure our immigration laws and oh, what a surprize, existing laws happen to benefit friends of whoever it was that passed the previous laws, that gives me a fresh perspective. I’m starting to return back to my old idea that perhaps congress could be less self-serving if they had term limits. That would create more opportunities for representatives to vote for things with their brains instead of with their campaign fund trackers.

  9. 9
    Mike's I.P. alter-ego says:

    Note- I don’t think term limits would eliminate corruption, many votes could still be bought, but more politicians in lame duck positions , and less money at stake for a position that couldn’t be held forever, I believe would curb SOME of the congress for hire mentality.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    I have mixed opinions on term limits for Congress. On the one hand there is an advantage to having Congress be made up more of people coming from the real world as opposed to doing this for a living. Making reelection less of a priority would be a plus.

    On the other hand, you are already selecting for a certain type of person who could pick up and leave their jobs. I also fear that if more members of Congress are newbies, decisions will be made more by staffers who do it for a career. There’s also something undemocratic about saying the voters cannot have someone they want representing them.

    Term limits also often seem to result in the persistence of professional politicians, except they spend their careers moving from one elected position to another.

  11. 11
    Mike's I.P. alter-ego says:

    Ok, thanks again Ron for your feedback, I get the idea, one could just be a serial politician, jumping from Senator to Govenor to V.P. or something (My Texas senator Kay Bailee Hutchinson seems to be attempting that very thing.) but I still like the idea of the moving target. If a corporation gets one politician in their pocket, they at least have to continuously struggle with the next one and the next, thus not ever having quite as easy and sure grip on any particular sector as if they just keep old reliable (whomever) in there.

  12. 12
    Eclectic Radical says:

    I’m originally from California, where we passed term limits believing that it would improve the situation in our state government, which was lobby-dirvem, hostile, and clogged. It’s still lobby-driven, hostile, and clogged. The only difference is that the people composing it change every now and then. I now liver on the TN/VA border. VA has a stict one term limit for their governor, the result being they have a new governor every term and the old governor’s policies are constantly under attack by the new.
    This is not always the case in every instance… Mark Warner was succeeded by Tim Kaine, and they were much of a muchness in their thinking on key issues. However, there have been periods where VA was ‘governed’ by one party, then the other, then the first. In a constant switchback that led to total inertia.
    Generally speaking, I tend to find the promised benefits of term limits (the promotion of non-professional politics, the de-emphasis of re-election, and the lessening of corruption) tend to be less than promised while the disadvantages of term limits (the inevitable loss of a ‘really good one’ when you finally get them and the difficulty in sustaining governing ‘momentum’) are felt more strongly than anticipated by those who advocate for them.
    So I tend to oppose most term limits, despite the fact that I approve of the idea behind them very much.

  13. 13
    Eclectic Radical says:

    I went from being extremely hard on illegal immigration to being extremely pro-amnesty and pro-immigration reform. In my younger days I had the hard ‘law-and-order’ streak that many liberal Republicans have, which is often what keeps them in the GOP despite disagreeing with pretty much everything else.
    However, coming from California, I realized what a genuine non-issue illegal immigration really is (in practical terms, of course it is a huge political issue in CA) as I learned more about the situation. Much like health care reform, this is a topic in which the majority of arguments on the anti-immigration side are spurious. The welfare argument is the one made most frequently, but illegal immigrants come to the US to work. As a result, their welfare bills are actually much smaller than those of US citizens.
    The agricultural economy of California (and to a lesser extent, Oregon and Washington) and many of the menialjobs in Colorado and the Southwest, are dependent on illegal immigration for cheap labor. Now, this is exploitationist and good for neither the American economy nor the immigrants themselves, but it’s not a problem that can be solved by border security or spending law enforcement resources on uncovering and deporting illegals. And that kind of law enforcement spending is something that would require ‘infinite resources.’
    Instead of going on ad nauseam, I’m going to stop here. I know you read my blog from time to time, so I’ll likely post my thoughts in immigration policy at greater length there sometime soon.
    I know Ron doesn’t need me cluttering up his blog with short essays that should be on mine all the bloody time. 🙂

Leave a comment