Unlawful spending
Last Updated on 10/16/2008
Published on 6/26/2008
Gov. Mark Sanford's vetoes don't keep members of the S.C. General Assembly from spending the taxpayers' money as they see fit, but that doesn't mean there's no stopping the government machine in Columbia.
Edward Sloan, a retired Greenville businessman, and the S.C. Public Interest Foundation won a suit in the S.C. Supreme Court this week, stopping a spending bill that used the legislative practice known as bobtailing.
For Sloan, it was his second successful trip to the high court. He sued the Legislature in 2004 over a bill that contained so many unrelated provisions it was called the "kitchen sink" bill. Legislators had tacked special interest spending on to the bill as a way of disguising it from the public.
The High Court said again this week that lawmakers can't tack funding for pet projects onto bills that have nothing to do with those projects. The state constitution requires that "every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the title."
That allows citizens to identify a law's subject by its title -- and they can be assured another subject isn't hidden within the bill.
But lawmakers like to attach their own priorities, usually pork-barrel projects, onto other bills they know will be passed by the General Assembly. It helps them push this spending through.
There's just one problem -- that pesky S.C. Constitution.
Lawmakers know that gubenatorial vetoes won't stop their spending measures, but at least the courts have flushed them out of the shadows.
While the Sloan lawsuit aimed at striking down the entire statewide bill that contained some 70 sections, the court upheld all but two provisions, contending the rest related to the subject of "raising revenue." The two sections that were found invalid involved wine tastings and the creation of the fund to provide loans and grants to those engaged in renewable energy production. The court declined to rule on the five local bills being challenged, concluding the plaintiffs had no legal standing.
This unbalance of power is what keeps lawmakers from reforming the obsolete and unaccountable structure of state government. They are not willing to give up any of their power over the other two branches of government. They are not interested in giving citizens and taxpayers a more efficient and accountable government if it means giving up some of their patronage and control.
Despite the governor's efforts at reform, nothing has changed except there are citizens like Edward Sloan who demand that the state government follow the Constitution.
