Nick Nyhart, Public Campaign Action Fund

This week’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court could add an ally of campaign finance reform to the nation’s highest judicial body. Sotomayor was a member of New York City’s Campaign Finance Board in its earliest days, helping establish the city’s successful system of publicly financed elections.

In a 1996 Suffolk Law Review article, co-authored with Nicole Gordon, the Board’s executive director at that time, Sotomayor writes:

“We would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers’ interests. Yet our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates’ campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate. Can elected officials say with credibility that they are carrying out the mandate of a ‘democratic’ society, representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns?”

Her confirmation would stand in contrast to the arrivals of Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Both have taken a negative stance towards the regulation of campaign money. There’s more to see in this article from Politico.

Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Orangeburg) speaks at the People’s Stimulus Rally April 1 at the State House.

*****************

It’s been seven long years since a movement to draft Gilda Cobb-Hunter to run for governor ran into a roadblock: the prospective candidate herself. “South Carolina isn’t ready for a black woman to be governor,” she said. She declined to enter the race against Jim Hodges, and Mark Sanford was elected governor.

The buzz among friends who know her best is that she is open to reconsidering a run for governor or, perhaps, taking on Sen. Jim DeMint for his US Senate seat.

A lot has changed in seven years, not the least of which is that we have a black man in the White House. White men — from president, to governor to the legislature — have proven their inability to meaningfully address the problems facing our state and nation; it may well be time for Gilda to reconsider her earlier hesitancy.

The Democratic Party is fielding some nice guys to contend for its nomination for governor. Sen. Vince Sheheen of Camden, Rep. Harry Ott of Calhoun County, and Mullins McLeod of Charleston are names being mentioned. But they don’t resonate with the demand for substantive change that could inspire new South Carolina voters. We can’t expect their candidacies to be far removed from the traditional Democratic strategy of playing to the right of center to pick off a couple of percentage points from the Republican vote. This is the “Republican Lite” strategy that has failed for the past 30 years.

But what if a bold candidate spoke to the 43 percent of South Carolinians who did not vote in the last election?

To put it in perspective, McCain got 1,034,896 votes in South Carolina’s last general election; Obama got 862,449. That adds up to 1,897,345 South Carolinians who voted. Sitting it out were 1,472,048 of the voting-age population (24 percent of them registered voters) who didn’t vote. That’s an untapped market of 43 percent of folks in this state who could vote but chose not to.

We only need to mobilize 12 percent of the people who don’t vote to turn the state blue. Of all the Democratic candidates mentioned, Gilda has the magic to make this happen. She is the one person in the legislature who be counted on to vote in the interest of working people, minorities and the disenfranchised. Her candidacy for governor or US Senate would inject a level of enthusiasm into the race — helping all Democratic candidates — that nobody else could provide.

What do you think? Email scprogressivecaucus@earthlink.com to voice your opinion. Should Gilda run for governor, US Senate, or stay in the State House?

Sign spotted at a rally a few years ago suggests how loved Gilda is among her constituents.

On April 1, thousands rallied at the State House in Columbia to urge Gov. Mark Sanford to accept the stimulus money for South Carolina. The rally was organized by the SC Progressive Network. Here are some links to videos, photos and a sampling of news clips of the event.

Thanks to everyone who turned out to make the rally such a huge success!

Sorry this is so late in coming, but the Network’s web site, and this blog, were hacked twice in a week, and it has taken us some time to fix the problem. Funny that we were hacked just as news of this event was making headlines here and nationally. Whether coincidence or not, the timing could not have been worse. Just when traffic was at its peak, those tuning in to our site were greeted with what amounts to digital graffiti that included threats and expletives. We regret any confusion or offense it may have caused.

Becci Robbins
SC Progressive Network Communications Director

To view comments about this video, click here. Truly sad. And scary.

To view photos from the rally, see the Network’s photo album here.

April 2, 2009, NPR Morning Edition

SC Governor Being Pressured to Take the Stimulus

April 2, 2009, WLTX-TV

Hundreds Rally to Urge Governor to Take Stimulus

April 2, 2009, AOL-TV

Crowd Shots from the People’s Stimulus Rally

April 2, 2009, WOLO-TV

Time is Running Out for Sanford’s Stimulus Decision

April 2, 2009, BET.com

Protesters in South Carolina Demand Gov. Take Stimulus Money

April 2, 2009, The State

Rally urges Sanford to ‘Take the money’ – Educators, students, lawmakers rally at State House

April 1, 2009, WIS-TV

Protesters Hope Sanford Takes the Money

April 1, 2009, WBRV

Saga Over Stimulus

April 1, 2009

Hundreds Show up to Protest

By Joseph Neal
(Rev. Neal served as Co-chair of the SC Progressive Network for a decade)
Guest Columnist, The State

Author and pastor Rick Warren begins his transformative book, The Purpose Driven Life, with a simple statement: “It’s not about you.”

As Gov. Mark Sanford engages the General Assembly in political gamesmanship over accepting federal stimulus dollars, his actions should prove to South Carolinians that despite his words to the contrary, it’s not about you.

Don’t be confused. Whether or not the governor accepts the money has nothing to do with the potential impact on you, your family or your quality of life.

So, to the more than 4 million residents of our state, it’s not about you.

To the 1,000 to 6,000 public school teachers facing layoffs if the money is rejected, it’s not about you.

To the hundreds of thousands of school children facing larger class sizes, fewer gifted and talented course offerings and fewer textbooks and supplies, it’s not about you.

To the business owners who rely on state government or the workers it employs to survive, it’s not about you.

To the 241,000 residents currently unemployed, it’s not about you.

Even to the 601,868 of you who voted for Sanford in the 2006 general election, it’s not about you.

And especially to the 170 members of the General Assembly, it’s not about you.

If nothing else, this continuing controversy should confirm once and for all that the governor does not have — and has not had — the best interest of South Carolinians at heart. For six years, the governor has used his bully pulpit to mislead and misinform residents, resulting in alternating tides of fear and anger.

He has manufactured controversies and exaggerated differences with the General Assembly for the sole purpose of either garnering more power for himself or defunding and destabilizing state government. Those are the only two end products of his political agenda.

The debate over school vouchers is nothing more than a vehicle to limit funding to public education by diverting it elsewhere. The governor’s persistent calls for eliminating the personal income tax is merely a means to take away the most stabile revenue source — even in a downturn — for state government.

With the controversy surrounding the stimulus money, the governor gets to accomplish both goals. The stimulus bill affords the governor new-found power to shape the budget debate. And he has used his position to catapult himself into the national spotlight. At the same time, he has more authority than ever to severely limit or destabilize state government. For Sanford, the stimulus debate, as the political pundits say, is a perfect storm.

Sanford does not believe in the power of government to better the lives of citizens. The governor does not believe in the responsibility of government to be a safety net for those who are less fortunate or cannot help themselves.

His attacks on state government will have the net effect of shrinking our state’s middle class. This is particularly troubling for African-American residents, who hold a greater share of managerial positions in state government than in the private sector.

The governor’s attacks on public education threaten to exacerbate economic and racial disparities in our state. Education is our society’s greatest equalizer. Keeping our residents poor and ignorant makes the state attractive only to those types of businesses that will keep them in subjugation.

Rev. Warren’s words were intended to remind us to move beyond being self-absorbed and find God’s purpose for our lives by helping one another. This is particularly true for anyone desiring to be a public servant. So, Mark Sanford, enough. It’s not about you.

Rev. Neal represents Richland and Sumter counties in the S.C. House.