Columbia, SC (WLTX) – The South Carolina House Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reconsider an ethics case against Gov. Nikki Haley.
“Hopefully it’ll be a fair and impartial review of facts and the testimony of witnesses so that we can determine, better determine, and be informed about the allegations against the Governor,” said Kershaw County Rep. Laurie Funderburk, a Democrat. Hers was the only vote against the initial vote to dismiss the complaint against Haley.
The committee’s decision came after a meeting late Wednesday in which Haley’s lawyer argued that the case shouldn’t be revisited.
Earlier this month, the same committee voted to dismiss all charges against the first-term governor. At issue is her time as a fundraiser for Lexington Medical Center and as a consultant for Wilbur Smith Associates, a consulting firm.
Haley was still a member of the House of Representatives when she held those jobs…
I wish I’d been there to hear the discussion, but I couldn’t get away at that time this evening.
What I would have wanted to hear would have been an explanation of why every Republican on the panel voted to end the investigation so recently — earlier this very month — but has now voted to reopen.
Suddenly, the case has merit, it seems.
Let me say that again another way: Within the same month, every single GOP member of the committee has changed his or her mind from “no” to “yes.” One doesn’t know whether to say “Thanks be for miracles” or “Hey, wait a minute…” Here’s a thought: Do both.
What caused this? Could it be as simple as “there were some feelings out there that more investigation needed to be done,” as chairman Roland Smith put it? In other words, that the people of South Carolina sort of collectively said “B.S.” to the vote to dismiss the charges?
Or was it meddling by the mean ol’ speaker? Nope. I saw Bobby today and asked him why he keeps picking on poor Nikki. “I’m not,” he said. So there you have it.
Are you worried that the gov will be distracted by this from the sterling job she’s doing for us, the trembling masses who elected her? Fear not:
“It’s a shame that South Carolina’s political system is once again failing the people and that politics are trumping the law. The governor will do what she has done time and again throughout this process, before and after the claims were dismissed: be open and honest about her work as a legislator, and stay focused on the things that matter to South Carolinians – getting our economy moving and reforming the backwards, good old boy system of government that so clearly thrives in Columbia,” said Haley’s spokesman Rob Godfrey after the decison.[sic]
I’m sure that makes you feel better. Reading back over that statement, I’m reminded of something we used to say long ago when we were on the old mainframe system in The State‘s newsroom: “I think he’s got that on a SAVE/GET key.” If you don’t understand, that’s OK: It’s technical…
Related Posts
“Suddenly, the case has merit, it seems.” – Brad W.
Really, all of a sudden, again, and again?
How about just the same ol’ weak pols covering their butts (again)?
You love you some Bobby Harrell… why, I don’t know.
I’m pretty neutral on Bobby. Hence my ironic tone above. We all know there’s no love lost between him and Nikki. At the same time, he’s not “picking on her.” This is a legit investigation.
This may be a stupid question, but what exactly ARE the allegations?
Bryan, I think the allegations have to do with what Haley did while working for the Lexington Hospital while at the same serving in the general assembly. The accusation is that she was lobbying for the heart center. That may be legal if she was paid by the quasi-independent public relations arm of the hospital but not by the hospital itself.
The problem Haley has is if she wasn’t lobbying then exactly what was she paid for? She was a consultant of some sort but what was she be consulted for? I don’t see how any of this can possibly be legal but maybe there’s some technicality that will get her off. Apparently the committee found her actions technically legal the first go around. As Brad says it is very puzzling why 5 legislators would suddenly see this issue differently.
Im so old I know the key command, alas. I still have my reduction/enlargement wheel and pica type fitting slide rule.
I have a pica pole on my desk at home. No jar of rubber cement, however.
Speaking of proportion wheels… Did you ever have one of those expandable gate things, like a baby gate, for sizing art? A THOUSAND times better and quicker than a wheel — the next best thing to Quark Xpress.
In my copyediting days in the 70s, we had ONE of those on the desk, and we all fought over it. Nobody used the wheel, because it was too slow. And no one knew where to buy another one. Then one day, somebody laid hands on a second one — I don’t know where from — and we felt rich.
I think the very public nature of the hearings are leading the House Ethics Committee to do things that for a very long time it hasn’t done.
I also think the members of the committee are under the impression — which they have talked about at the hearings — that the public thinks they are a bit of a joke. Some seem very stung by this notion.
They want to prove that they aren’t — and, for the first time, they are being forced to prove it in public.
Here’s something I wrote about last night’s hearing that I thought was the most interesting tidbit:
http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11863105124163347
Enough of this journalistic nerd talk.
Bud says, “I don’t see how any of this can possibly be legal but maybe there’s some technicality that will get her off.”
Actually, in my experience, lots of people who look and act (to the casual observer) like lobbyists are not technically lobbyists, and not required by the law to register.
So proving she WAS lobbying probably isn’t as easy as you think.
She’s got a great defense — lawmakers lobby for constituents. If she hadn’t been paid by the hospital (or the foundation), no one would think it odd that she would be advocating for that large institution in her district. She’d be expected to do so.
So pretty much any activity that looks like lobbying can be explained that way.
In other words, we might find out some interesting things from hearings with witnesses under oath — for instance, it would be interesting to hear just what she actually DID do for the money (particularly in light of the way her association with the hospital and/or foundation ended). But if the panel fails to find evidence proving that it was technically lobbying, I’m not going to be shocked.
Good piece, Corey H!
There are lots of things that are perfectly fine until you get paid to do them. If Cindi Scoppe wrote a great editorial attacking X and then you had found out she was paid by anti-X, would that not have caused a problem?
What if she were paid by the anti-X Foundation, and the check was issued by anti-X?
Did Nikki actually raise any funds for Lex Med through ordinary means?
and how is Henry McMaster scoring on behalf of the law school?
Well, in her case, it’s forbidden.
But in my case, where there’s no wall…
While at times I’ve had ads from one or two or more people running against each other, there is a slightly higher likelihood that someone for whom I have an affinity as a candidate would want to advertise on my blog. And how does that look?
Here’s how it’s worked out in real life… I have a tendency not to want to express ANY kind of opinion about a race that I have advertising from. I sort of go into reporting mode — which is not my preferred key…
Another sort of chilling effect.
I just wish I could get somebody good to go out and sell ads for me, and not tell me what he or she is doing — just gimme the checks.
Maybe Nikki Haley can use her contacts…