James Smith addresses members of the SC Progressive Network on April 7 at our annual spring conference at the Lourie Center in Columbia.

•  •  •

In its first gubernatorial endorsement in 22 years, the SC Progressive Network (501-C-4) is supporting James Smith in the June 12 Democratic primary for governor.

A state-by-state analysis released for Equal Pay Day tomorrow reveals that a woman employed full time, year-round in South Carolina is typically paid just 78 cents for every dollar paid to a man – a yearly pay difference of $9,995. That means South Carolina women lose a combined total of nearly $11.8 billion every year to the gender wage gap. If it were closed, on average, a woman working full time in South Carolina would be able to afford 78 more weeks of food for her family, more than eight additional months of mortgage and utilities payments, nearly one additional year of tuition and fees for a four-year public university, nearly the full cost of tuition and fees for a two-year community college, nearly 12 more months of rent or 21 more months of child care each year.

This new analysis, conducted by the National Partnership for Women & Families using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, finds that South Carolina has the 17th largest cents-on-the-dollar gap in the nation. It also finds that there is a gender-based wage gap in every single state and the District of Columbia. The cents-on-the-dollar gap is largest in Louisiana and Utah, followed closely by West Virginia and Montana – and smallest in New York, California and Florida. The study also analyzed the wage gap in each of South Carolina’s congressional districts, as well as for Black women in South Carolina and other states.

Working women in South Carolina are not alone in suffering the effects of the gender wage gap. It has detrimental effects on women’s spending power in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The wage gap contributes greatly to our country’s high rates of poverty and income inequality and is especially punishing for women of color. Nationally, white non-Hispanic women are typically paid 79 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, Black women 63 cents and Latinas 54 cents. Asian women are paid 87 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, although some ethnic subgroups of Asian women fare much worse. The wage gap for mothers is 71 cents for every dollar paid to fathers.

“Equal Pay Day is a disturbing reminder that women overall have had to work more than three months into 2018 just to catch up with what men were paid in 2017, and Black women and Latinas must work considerably further into the year,” said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership. “The wage gap cannot be explained by women’s choices. It’s clear that discrimination contributes to it – and equally clear that it’s causing grave harm to women, families and the country. Lawmakers have not done nearly enough to end wage discrimination based on gender and race; to end sexual harassment, which impedes women’s job advancement; to stop discrimination against pregnant women; to advance paid family and medical leave and paid sick days; and to increase access to high-quality, affordable reproductive health care. If our country is to thrive, we must root out bias in wages, reject outdated stereotypes and stop penalizing women for having children and caring for their families.”

To address this pervasive problem, the National Partnership is urging Congress to pass:

• The Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help break harmful patterns of pay discrimination and establish stronger workplace protections for women;
• The Fair Pay Act, which would diminish wage disparities that result from gender-based occupational segregation;
• The Healthy Families Act, which would guarantee workers the right to earn paid sick days;
• The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which would create a comprehensive paid family and medical leave program;
• The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which would update and strengthen protections against discrimination against pregnant workers;
• The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act, which would restore abortion coverage to women who receive health care or insurance through the federal government and prohibit political interference with health insurance companies that offer coverage for abortion care; and
• Measures that would increase the minimum wage, eliminate the tipped minimum wage and strengthen protections against sexual harassment in the workplace.

“The gender-based wage gap results in staggering losses that make it harder for women, in South Carolina and across the country, to pay for food and shelter, child care, college tuition, birth control and other health care. We urgently need public policies that improve women’s access to decent-paying jobs, provide the supports women need to stay in the workforce and advance in their jobs, and ensure fair and nondiscriminatory treatment wherever women work and whatever jobs they hold,” added National Partnership Vice President for Workplace Policies and Strategies Vicki Shabo. “We need the Trump administration to help solve this problem rather than exacerbating it. We ask the administration to immediately stop blocking the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from implementing an equal pay initiative aimed at identifying and helping root out pay discrimination.”

In addition, Ness noted that state lawmakers can help address the wage gap by passing laws that prohibit employers from asking about salary history and protect employees from retaliation if they discuss pay. The private sector plays a role as well, and companies can help level the playing field by increasing pay transparency, limiting the use of salary history and using standardized pay ranges in hiring and promotions.

Findings for each state from the National Partnership’s new wage gap analysis are available at NationalPartnership.org/Gap, as are analyses of the wage gap at the national level, in the 25 states with the largest numbers of Black women and Latinas who work full time, and in all 435 congressional districts.

The National Partnership for Women & Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. More information is available at NationalPartnership.org.

Not to sound alarmist, but the last time we saw Rep. Bill Sandifer – Chair of the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee – jam a bill through LCI was in 2007, when the now-maligned Base Load Review Act went straight to the House floor with no public hearing, and cleared both the House and Senate in a record three days.

It is worth noting that Sandifer is also a Task Force Chair of the uber-business friendly American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

On Thursday, Sandifer introduced a bill (H-5045) to repeal the two sections of SC Code of Laws governing solar power. The bill is scheduled for a subcommittee hearing at 10am Tuesday, March 6. The bill – just one sentence long – would repeal Title 58 Chapter 39 and 40 of state laws passed in 2014.

Those utility-friendly laws allowed some solar power distribution by other than utilities and established a net metering system that gives utility credits to those who make more solar power than they can use. This was a small step forward, but South Carolina still has among the nation’s most restrictive solar laws.

No one knows what will take their place, but we are told an amended version of the laws will be introduced tomorrow morning. The new solar laws then go before the full LCI committee at 11:30 – before anyone has a chance to read them, much less study their implications.

When Circuit Court Judge Carmen Mullen hears arguments in the sentencing hearing of former Rep. Rick Quinn (R-Lexington) on Monday, she will also be considering who should pay to replace him in the legislature.

While Judge Mullen has the discretion to add the cost of the special election to Quinn’s sentence, a bill is pending in the legislature to require prosecutors to include the cost of special elections to their sentencing recommendations.

Quinn was indicted by the state grand jury last April for misappropriating $4 million over a number of years in office.

At a December hearing, Quinn pled guilty to one misdemeanor charge of failing to report a $28,000 payment from the University of South Carolina. Special Prosecutor David Pascoe told Judge Mullen “there has been no one more corrupt than Rick Quinn.”

Judge Mullen has been asked to apply the state law (17-25-322) that allows a judge to require restitution to victims for financial damage.

“Rick Quinn has pled guilty to abusing the trust of his constituents, as well as misappropriating money,” said Brett Bursey, a resident of Quinn’s Lexington County district and director of the SC Progressive Network. “As a voter in House District 69 and a Lexington County taxpayer, I will be paying a portion of the county’s and State Election Commission’s costs to hold an election for Quinn’s replacement.”

Chris Whitmire of the State Election Commission cited the county’s estimated cost at $17,000 for opening a limited number of precincts. The SEC’s cost is projected to be $36,000.

“It’s going to cost state taxpayers over $1 million to replace the legislators recently convicted of crimes,” said John Crangle, the Network’s government relations director. “It’s the worst I’ve ever seen it,” he said. “I haven’t had representation in the Senate since last April because John Courson was charged with embezzling campaign funds. If he’s found guilty, county and state taxpayers face a bill of over $100,000 for a special election.”

Sen. Mike Fanning (D-Fairfield) filed the Special Elections Restitution Act (S-533) in January 2017, before the recent indictments of Quinn and suspended Sen. Courson. The bill has been assigned to a Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Sen. Chip Campsen (R-Charleston), with Sen. Tom Young (R-Aiken) and Sen. Fanning.

Building on the work done since the SC Progressive Network‘s forum Corruption in the Palmetto State last May, we want to go beyond identifying the problems in our ailing democracy to focus on remedies, both legislative and cultural.

The Progressive Network’s Education Fund has written five bills that have been introduced by our partners in the Progressive Legislative Caucus that address campaign finance and corruption. Another bill is in the works that focuses on the fact that 77 percent of SC voters have only one name on their general election ballot for their House and/or Senate representative. Our politically gerrymandered districts facilitate corruption through lack of competition. Only 8.6% of the state’s registered voters elected the Republican majority in the 2016 primary election.

All the bills filed to date calling for an independent redistricting commission fail to make the commission truly independent as they are appointed by the Governor and the legislature and default to the legislature if the “independent” commission fails to reach a decision. We will be introducing a bill for a Citizens Redistricting Commission this session, along with a constitutional amendment to let the citizens draw the districts, not the incumbents.

We are working with Republican legislators on other bills they have introduced to make our campaign finance system more transparent and accountable.

•  •  •

S-533 (Sen. Mike Fanning, D-Fairfield and Rep. Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg) would make politicians removed from office due to a criminal conviction pay for the special elections to replace them. The millions in corporate campaign cash to legislators who face no opposition has contributed to corruption. Each special election to replace incumbent state legislators removed from office due to a conviction costs taxpayers between $35,000 to $125,000, depending on the district and whether it’s a senator of representative being replaced. A special election for a US congressman can run up to $500,000. Since these costs are split between state and county taxes, the constituents of the convicted politician pay the greatest share

H-4443 (Rep. Clary, R-Pickens) requires candidates to disclose if they, or an immediate family member is paid by a company that lobbies their office. A current campaign finance report must be filed 72 hours before and election, campaign expenditures are clearly enumerated and accounted for and independent expenditures are restricted.

H-4444 (Rep. Clary, R-Pickens) prohibits an elected official from appointing a campaign donor to a public office for four years after the donation.

H-4498 (Rep. Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg and Sen. Fanning, D-Fairfield) calls for giving qualified candidates for attorney general who refuse all private donations a publicly financed grant to run for office. In his last race, state Attorney General Alan Wilson took maximum campaign contributions from SCANA, and has taken more than $500,000 from lawyers and off-duty lobbyists in his last three campaigns. Public financing would allow candidates to run for attorney general without taking any campaign contributions from individuals or corporations that may later need to be investigated or indicted. In 2001, then Republican Party Chair Henry McMaster understood the problems inherent in allowing the state’s top law enforcement officer to rely on private cash to run for office. McMaster told Gov. Hodge’s Campaign Finance Reform Commission that the race for attorney general is the one elected office that should be publicly financed.

H-4499 (Rep. Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg and Sen. Fanning, D-Fairfield) places a constitutional amendment on the general election ballot that lets the people vote to allow public financing for Attorney General candidates.

H-4501 (Rep. Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg and Sen. Fanning, D-Fairfield) would prohibit regulated utilities from making campaign contributions to the candidates and politicians who regulate them. An example is the 2007 legislation that allowed SCE&G to charge ratepayers in advance for nuclear reactors that have since been abandoned.

H-4500 (Rep. Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg and Sen. Fanning, D-Fairfield) would place a small fee on all campaign contributions that would fund an automated public disclosure system and generate money for attorney general candidates who want to opt into a publicly financed campaign. The State Ethics Commission is woefully underfunded, short-staffed, and has a public disclosure web site that is opaque. Furthermore, candidates make unintentional mistakes – as well as intentional – in filing. This bill offers a low-cost, high-tech solution to multiple problems. S-766 requires all campaign contributions to be deposited in interest bearing accounts with the interest going to the benefit of the State Ethics Commission.

H-4456 (Rep. Clary, R-Pickens) is a bipartisan bill calling for a committee of non-elected citizens to draw district lines for the legislature and US congressional districts. Redistricting is a critical part of restoring democracy in SC, and the process is an earnest work in progress. Consider: 77% of SC lawmakers are elected with no opposition in the general election. Just 8.6% of the state’s registered voters chose the ruling majority of the General Assembly in the Republican primary.

S-764 (Sen. Timmons, R-Greenville) makes candidates tax returns available to the State Ethics Commission during an investigation or complaint.

S-765 (Sen. Timmons, R-Greenville) redefines lobbyist to include those work, without compensation, for another party to influence official actions.

Questions? Contact the Network at 803-808-3384, network@scpronet.com.