Tag Archives: Sen. Mike Fanning

On the first day of session, lawmakers pledge bipartisan support for fair maps in SC

Posted on by

On the first day of the SC 2020 legislative session, fair maps advocates gathered at the State House holding signs with the names of state lawmakers and the percentage by which each won their seats. The original plan to assemble on the front steps of the State House was rained out, but it didn’t dampen the spirits of those who filled the lobby.

Some drove hours to be there — from Charleston, Greenville, Rock Hill, and more than a dozen from Horry County, where activists have been working a county-based petition drive for fair maps in South Carolina.

Brian Kasprzyk and his wife, Malle Kasprzyk, drove from Little River. It was a long trip, but worth the drive, he said. On the Fair Maps Facebook group, he posted: “Today was a great day for democracy and fair maps in South Carolina. It was great because 2 republican and 2 Democratic legislators joined together to address the crowd and support redistricting legislation — for the first time.”

Brian Kasprzyk

It’s true. In an unprecedented move, a bipartisan group of SC lawmakers stood in the State House together to make a strong and unified public statement against gerrymandering in South Carolina. Democrats Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter and Sen. Mike Fanning joined Republicans Rep. Gary Clary and Sen. Tom Davis at a morning press conference on Jan. 14.

Retired Sen. Phil Leventis made opening comments. In his 32 years as a state lawmaker, he took part in five redistricting sessions. “In 2002, we reapportioned the Senate,” he said, “and before the elections in 2004 it was reapportioned again. I can’t tell you why. But I can tell you it raises questions about the whole process. And the process needs to be fair.”

The system is broken. Fact is, 75 percent of South Carolina voters have only one name on the ballot for House or Senate. Ninety percent of legislative seats were won with an average of 86% of the vote. Just 10 percent of the General Assembly was won by less than 60 percent. That’s 17 seats out of 170.

Competitive districts make winners work to please a majority of the voters, not just the small percent that turns out for the primary.

The task at hand is studying and debating the several proposals that have been filed, and finding common ground that, ultimately, gets politicians out of the business of picking their voters.

“South Carolina has more problems with gerrymandering than any state in the United States of America,” Sen. Fanning said. “It is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem; it is a people not having a voice in their government problem. For every solid, safe Republican seat we have a solid, safe Democratic seat. We have created an apartheid here in South Carolina that has divided the voters at the whim of politicians.”

Rep. Cobb-Hunter said, “We all can agree the system is, indeed, rigged.” She vowed to support any fair maps bill that gets traction. “It makes for a better South Carolina, a better governance when all of us who are blessed and highly favored enough to be in these positions when we have to reach out to everybody as opposed to a select group.”

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter

Rep. Clary said, “What we’re talking about here is fundamental fairness. The idea that I, or any other member of the General Assembly, can go in and adjust the line to suit my whim – -to move someone out of my district or to remove a group from my district — is repugnant to me.”

Sen. Davis said, “What we have is a crisis of legitimacy. The idea that I or any other member of the General Assembly can go in and adjust the line to suit my whim – to move someone out of my district or to remove a group from my district is repugnant to me. What we’re talking about is restoring people’s faith in representative government. This is about returning power to the sovereign people.” 

Fanning, a former social studies teacher, said he taught civic engagement. “We registered to vote in my class. I made sure my students knew where to vote and when to vote. I had pumped them up, with as much passion as I had inside me. What broke my heart is that when my students came back and said, ‘There was only one name on the ballot. My vote didn’t matter.’ There wasn’t anything I could say to that.

“We have banded together as Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House. Each of us has bills, but none has gotten traction because the argument doesn’t belong to us, the argument belongs to the people.”

Preston Anderson has taken that directive to heart. As a volunteer with the Fair Maps SC Coalition  has spent months going to events to talk about fair maps and gather signatures for the Richland County petition drive. By now he has talked to hundreds of South Carolinians. “Across the political spectrum, people were very interested in learning more about gerrymandering and the effect it has had on the political situation in South Carolina.”

Fair Maps organizer Preston Anderson

Fair Maps volunteers who have been in the field see a steep learning curve ahead. They are finding that a surprising number of voters know little to nothing about gerrymandering and how it corrodes the integrity of South Carolina’s elections. Same goes for lawmakers.

To that end, we gave each of them our handout full of numbers that should alarm anyone who cares about the state of democracy in South Carolina.

For more about the Fair Maps Coalition, (the SC Progressive Network is a member) see FairMapsSC.com.

10,000 teachers make history at SC for Ed rally

Posted on by

On May Day, 10,000 educators, students, and supporters marched from the state Education Department down Senate Street to the State House grounds, where they held a spirited rally — and made history. The grounds were a sea of red, a powerful show of unity and stregth, the crowd audible to lawmakers inside.

Sen. Mike Fanning opened the rally on the Network’s Healthy Democracy rolling stage,  and closed the rally at the State House with a call to action. A teacher himself, Fanning has championed educators in the Senate and is passionate about advocating for real reform rather than the lip service that’s been given for decades to education in South Carolina.

“For too long in South Carolina, teachers have been sitting back and letting non-teachers set the vision for learning, and that has to stop,” Fanning said.

“We have to speak up. We don’t want something done in 10 years — the time is now!

“You are here today — the largest gathering of teachers in the history of South Carolina — and you have done something my colleages never thought you’d do. We showed up by the thousands, we made noise, and we ain’t done yet.”

Teachers are asking for reduced class size and less mandated testing, and more mental health counseling. (Half of schools have no counselors, and half have them only on Tuesdays and Thursdays.)

Fanning said, “You’ve been bullied this week by the community, by your own state superintendent of education.” Molly Spearman issued a statement two days before the rally decrying the “walkout.”

“Year in and year out we rank 48th and 49th in teacher pay,” Fanning said. “We have a base per-student formula that we haven’t funded one time in 11 years. Eleven years doesn’t sound long to those folks, but that is an entire career of a student.

“This year the General Assembly had 1.1 billion extra dollars. Guess what we did to the base student formula? The House cut it by 18 dollars, the Senate cut it by three dollars. Whatever budget passes, you will get less money next year than you got this year per student.

“Eight people crafted the reform bill, with not a single teacher in the room. The bill passed the House 106 to 4. What’s the magic bullet, people ask: I say: Let teachers teach and students learn.

“You blew people’s minds today. Nobody exptected 10,000 teachers. If you’d shown up yesterday, it wouldn’t have been nearly as powerful as showing up with 9,999 others. I need you to make sure they hear your voice, and you’re not going away.

The rally ended with 10,000 voices chanting: I teach, I vote!

This could be a turning point in the long fight for public education in South Carolina. Whatever happens, the rally was a stunning example of worker solidarity that should inspire people across the state.

The SC Progressive Network offered logistical support at the rally. We look forward to collaborting with educators in the coming legislative session.

Sen. Mike Fanning chats with the Network’s Midlands coordinator Daniel Deweese

SC State House elections are nation’s least competitive

Quote

Posted on by

Lawmakers and advocates to pose solutions at Feb. 6 public forum in Columbia

South Carolina has the least competitive elections in the country, according to a recent study that concluded only 6 percent of legislative races in the Palmetto State offer voters a viable choice of candidates.

The National Institute on Money in State Politics used three measures to determine the competitiveness of state legislative races, gauging the monetary spread between winners and losers, the success rate of incumbents, and whether candidates had opposition. In 98 percent of legislative races, the winner spent at least twice what the loser did, representing the greatest money gap in the Institute’s 20 years of national surveys.

The study highlights the critical need for reforming the system. Toward that end, the SC Progressive Network has assembled a bipartisan panel of lawmakers and good-government advocates to discuss legislative remedies at a public forum Feb. 6, 7-9pm at the USC School of Law, 1525 Senate St. in Columbia. The Money in SC Politics roundtable will be live streamed at the SC Progressive Network’s web site. A reception will follow the panel discussion.

“It’s our mission to educate South Carolina citizens, including politicians, about the lack of competition in our elections and how that fuels corruption,” said Kyle Criminger, co-chair of the SC Progressive Network’s research and policy institute.

John Crangle, the Network’s director of government relations, has been monitoring State House ethics for 30 years. “It’s the worst I’ve ever seen it,” Crangle said. “I haven’t had representation in the Senate since last April because my senator was charged with embezzling campaign funds. If he’s found guilty, I’m going to have to pay both county and state taxes for a special election to replace him.”

Crangle’s senator, John Courson, is one of four legislators indicted on corruption charges who faced no major party competition in their last election. Sen. Mike Fanning has introduced a bill (S-533) to require politicians convicted of corruption to pay for the special election to replace them.

The political scandal prompted Attorney General Alan Wilson to recuse himself from the investigation. He has taken money from — and given money to — parties now accused of using campaign funds for personal gain. In 2014, Wilson raised over $800,000 in his race for re-election, exceeding legal limits. Wilson took the maximum contribution from SCANA, a corporation he now is being called on to investigate. His Democratic opponent that year raised only $19,000.

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter will explain her bill (H-4498) to allow candidates for attorney general to get a grant to run for office if they refuse all private money, including their own. “Our top law enforcement officer shouldn’t take money from citizens and corporations that he or she may have to investigate,” she said.

Rep. Cobb-Hunter and Sen. Fanning will be joined on the panel by Rep. Gary Clary (R-Pickens), who has introduced a bill calling for an independent redistricting commission (H-4456) to promote competitive elections and reduce partisan gridlock. Sen. Bill Timmons (R-Greenville) will discuss legislation requiring candidates to release their tax returns (S-765), and a bill to increase funding for the state Ethics Commission.

Lynn Teague, with the League of Women Voters – SC, will also be on the panel. “We need to look at the common threads in our ethics problems, our need for redistricting, and utility reform,” she said, “because they are all rooted in common causes.”

Progressive Legislative Caucus introduces anti-corruption bills

Posted on by

The SC Progressive Legislative Caucus has introduced four bills prepared by the SC Progressive Network’s Research and Policy Institute to reduce the corrupting influence of money in state policies.

The timing of this legislative package is critical, as South Carolina’s ethics scandals stretch into an election year. With public appetite for cleaning house at a record high, the Network is prepared to advance common-sense bills for reforms to make government more transparent and accountable.

Special election restitution

H-4502 would make politicians removed from office due to a criminal conviction pay for the special elections to replace them. Progressive Caucus member Sen. Mike Fanning (D-Fairfield) filed (S-533) bill in the Senate during the last session. (Watch a clip of him explaining the legislation.) Caucus Chair Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, the bill’s primary House sponsor, says that the flood of campaign cash to legislators who face no opposition has contributed to corruption.

Each special election to replace incumbent legislators removed from office due to a conviction costs taxpayers around $120,000 for a House seat; and $180,000 for a Senate seat. The state only pays for 40% of the cost, leaving counties paying the balance out of their underfunded budgets. To replace convicted attorneys general or other constitutional officers costs about $30,000 if a special session of the legislature is called.

The late Sen. Clementa Pinckney speaks at a press conference to promote the Network-backed bill he sponsored for clean elections (also called publicly financed elections). While it has been introduced year after year, the provision may now get traction as a bill to allow public financing for attorney general races.

Public financing of candidates for SC attorney general

As South Carolina’s corruption scandal widens, the time is ripe to renew our call for publicly financed elections, beginning with the attorney general. H-4499 calls for giving qualified candidates for attorney general who refuse all private donations a publicly financed grant to run for office.

State Attorney General Alan Wilson took maximum campaign contributions in his last race from both the McNair firm and SCANA. He took more than $500,000 from lawyers and off-duty lobbyists in his last three campaigns. After his 2014 campaign, Wilson returned $3,500 to former House Speaker Bobby Harrell after Harrell was indicted, and Wilson had to refund about $50,000 in donations that exceeded contribution limits.

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 Chairman 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.

Banning campaign donations by regulated utilities

4501 would prohibit regulated utilities from making campaign contributions to the candidates and politicians who are responsible for regulating them. An example is the 2007 legislation that allowed SCE&G to charge ratepayers in advance for nuclear reactors that have since been abandoned.

“The power company paid former Gov. McNair’s law firm to write the bill,” Cobb-Hunter said. Then both the utility and the law firm made $60,000 of strategic, bipartisan donations to legislators. “They even gave me a donation,” she said. The bill passed both bodies without a public hearing or debate. The Senate didn’t even take a roll call vote.

Public transparency and accounting fee for campaign donations

H-4500 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. We’ve crafted a low-cost, high-tech solution to multiple problems.