NEWS ANALYSIS

SENECA — When Ed Rumsey stood before roughly 50 of his supporters at South Cove Park on Monday to celebrate Gov. Mark Sanford’s endorsement of his candidacy, few of them could have imagined the broad and massive scope of the political dance in which they were engaged.

The eclectic group of young ideologues and elderly traditionalists gathering to hear Rumsey and Sanford may not have thought there was anything more to Rumsey’s campaign than a 75-year-old Vietnam War veteran running for office. They would be wrong. In fact, the Rumsey versus Bill Sandifer contest represents a small piece in a national political puzzle that involves interests from the Appalachian Mountains to the West Coast.

As is often the case in the realm of politics, some campaigns underscore deeper conflicts and complex alliances of which the public is blissfully unaware. Intra-party warfare, big money interests, hot button issues and struggles for political power will play an integral role in June’s Republican Primary, including Rumsey’s contest against incumbent Sandifer for the 2nd District seat in South Carolina’s House of Representatives.

When Sanford endorsed Rumsey over Sandifer, it marked the third time in a matter of weeks the governor had backed a Republican challenger over a Republican incumbent. Sanford made a political splash when he entered a Lexington County Republican battle, endorsing former county GOP chairwoman Katrina Shealy over incumbent Jake Knotts in the race for the 23rd district State Senate seat. Prior to that, he endorsed longtime personal friend Tom Davis in his campaign against incumbent Catherine Ceips for the 46th District seat in the Senate. The endorsements stirred up no small amount of controversy within the party, and illustrated the deteriorating relationship between Sanford and the state legislature. Sanford has had vetoes overridden by the legislature hundreds of times, in an effort, Sanford said, to increase the power and spending of the state government.

Among Rumsey’s campaign platforms is capping government spending. The Rumsey campaign says the last three years have seen a 41 percent increase in government spending, which is more than triple South Carolina’s growth in per capita income.

Sanford said Monday that while he rarely gets involved in local political races, he believed Rumsey’s political philosophies, coupled with what the governor called a “disconnect” between Sandifer and his local constituents on the matter of spending, compelled him to endorse Rumsey.

“The real point is, seats don’t belong to individual members,” Sanford said. “It is not a franchise one gets to own. It belongs to the people of this county. I think I have a responsibility in certain instances, when someone 95 percent of the time votes against every single spending veto that you have out there and has been part of the push to growing government by 41 percent over the last three years, to say, ‘Wait a minute, is this in touch with, reflective of where people are coming from in this county?’”

Sandifer, meanwhile, said Sanford did not keep his word in regards to endorsing another candidate.

“Two years ago he told me himself that in no case would he endorse a candidate against a sitting house member,” Sandifer said. “Apparently, what he told me does not hold water.”

THE HIT LIST

Whether it is a rumor perpetuated by those in search of a campaigning boost, or a sordid secret based in fact, an idea has circulated for months now that there exists a list of legislators Sanford is targeting for defeat in primary elections. Originally reported in an alternative publication called the “Free Times,” the document allegedly submitted to the S.C. Club for Growth names 31 senators and house members targeted in the 2008 primaries.

The selective endorsement of certain Republicans over their incumbent competitors lends credence, some say, to the theory that Sanford is waging a political war against rival lawmakers within his own party.

“It is rather interesting that the governor disavowed any knowledge of or even the existence of a hit list back several months ago.” Sandifer said. “If you look at the people he has endorsed, it corresponds very heavily with that hit list.”

Sandifer is among those on the purported hit list, as well as Sen. Thomas Alexander, who represents Oconee and a portion of Pickens County. Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens is also listed. Rep. Davey Hiott of Pickens, Rep. B.R. Skelton of Clemson and Rep. Bill Whitmire of Walhalla are on the House version. Sanford has categorically denied any involvement in any plan to specifically target those within his party for defeat, despite the endorsements of Shealy and Davis.

“What we’ve said all along was that there was no hit list, but on a case by case basis, we were going to endorse certain races. This happens to be one of them,” Sanford said. “Bill Sandifer and I have been completely at opposite ends on the larger theme of spending. I think this notion of growing government is not reflective of the people I talk to when I’m in this part of South Carolina.”

When asked if Rumsey was receiving his endorsement simply as a means to battle Sandifer, Sanford reiterated the idea that his support was but part of the larger electoral picture.

“I’m not targeting anyone for defeat,” Sanford said. “Whatever happens in an election happens.”

Sandifer said the endorsements are prime examples of the governor’s direct involvement in a war against his own party.

“It to me validates he was involved in that hit list,” Sandifer said. “The proof is in the pudding.”

Sandifer also rejected the idea that he was a runaway spender in the state government, citing his own set of endorsements and his voting record in an effort to prove he was a fiscal conservative.

“The record speaks for itself. In the last three years, I have voted to cut $1,039,000,000 in taxes for the people of South Carolina,” he said. “That equates to $17 million just for Oconee County. ”

He said he was endorsed by numerous politicians such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, as well as groups like the National Rifle Association, S.C. Association of Taxpayers, S.C. Chamber of Commerce, S.C. Citizens for Life and the S.C. Hospitality Association.

Alexander, while not overtly subscribing to the notion of a political hit list, did say he saw a pattern in Sanford’s support.

“It certainly seems like there is a pattern of his endorsements, which up until now were considered highly unusual for a sitting governor,” he said. “I can’t speak for his intentions, but I do know that we are all elected to do what we think will represent the citizens that send us to Columbia, and a lot of time that is working with the governor, and at times that means not agreeing with him. But I will say that, seeing that pattern, I would have to assume that if I had a primary opponent, that he could have very well endorsed my opponent.”

THE NEW YORK CONNECTION — WHO IS HOWARD RICH?

Sanford’s endorsement of certain candidates in local elections seems all the more sinister to some because the alleged political wars are being fought, in some people’s estimation, by proxy. A pro-school choice political action committee (PAC) called South Carolinians for Responsible Government (SCRG) uses a three-pointed approach to affect change in the state’s political landscape. First, it uses its SCRG Foundation to conduct research and provide information to the public and legislators. Second, it uses grassroots and lobbying efforts to affect legislation being passed into law. Third, it operates within its capacity as a PAC to get politicians sympathetic with their cause elected through direct contributions to candidates, sending direct mail advertisements to voters, paying for television and radio advertisements and other promotion ventures.

The South Carolina State Ethics Commission contribution database shows Rumsey’s campaign received no money from the SCRG, but that does not account for the numerous full color mailed color advertisements endorsing Rumsey that are clearly labeled as being paid for by the voucher lobbyist group. Sandifer called Rumsey a mere puppet of the SCRG, which has had increasing monetary leverage in the South Carolina political scene the last two election cycles.

“I owe no allegiance to anyone,” Rumsey said. “But if they support me and the goals that I have for helping this state to become more efficient, to become more competitive in the world market, then I will accept their backing. But I am not a puppet.”

Sandifer, meanwhile, called the SCRG the “leading opponent of public education in the state" and went so far as to say they not only backed Rumsey, they specifically recruited him to run.

The SCRG is one of many political action groups linked to a millionaire in New York City by the name of Howard Rich. Rich has an extensive history as a political activist across the nation. He is the founder and president of U.S. Term Limits, chairman of Americans for Limited Government, founder of Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD), chairman of Parents in Charge Foundation, as well as a board member at Cato Institute, the Club for Growth and the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation. Rich also leads the Club for Growth State Action and the Fund for Democracy. Quite simply, Rich uses his money to endorse candidates and push ballot initiatives on issues ranging from eminent domain, to taxpayers’ rights to school vouchers, commonly referred to as school choice.

Stophowardrichsc.blogspot.com, a Web site dedicated to informing the public of his influence in South Carolina’s political arena, states that groups like South Carolina Club for Growth (which incidentally contributed to Shealy’s campaign) and the SCRG are part of Rich’s extensive political network. Tax documents do show the SCRG’s phone number as the same as Rich’s U.S. Term Limits group in Chicago.

Rich’s modus operandi for affecting change financially is through funneling money through obscure LLC’s, a tactic used to get around South Carolina’s pesky contribution limit laws that restrict contributions to $3,500 for statewide offices and $1,000 for local offices.

According to the S.C. Ethics Commission contributions database, Sanford received multiple contributions of $3,500 from as many as seven different LLC’s that the Howard Rich watchdog site purports are front groups for Rich’s political machine. Rich’s network of political organizations have focused a great deal of attention on pro-voucher candidates in South Carolina in the last two years, contributing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates supporting Rich’s agenda in South Carolina.

Rich has done the same thing in states like Arizona, Oregon, California, Maine, Montana and Colorado, and has been accused of circumventing contribution laws as he did in South Carolina through front groups and his extensive national network.

PUBLIC AWARENESS

The question as to whether or not Sanford is working in conjunction with Rich’s organizations to alter South Carolina’s political dynamics may never be answered. What is known is that Sanford, an outspoken proponent of restructured and limited government, as well as school choice, is using his office to endorse candidates over Republican incumbents with whom he has been at odds, with some said incumbents being found on the infamous hit list. At the same time, a like-minded and well-funded organization of outsiders is funneling money to contribute to many challengers’ campaigns. The complexity of the state’s politics raises important questions: Is there a connection between Sanford, a hit list, and Howard Rich, or is that speculative conspiracy theory? Do outside interests have a legitimate role in influencing politics within individual states? Does the acceptance of PAC money, no matter the geographical origin, necessarily imply impropriety for local politicians trying to win an election?

Alexander simply says the general public should arm itself with the facts so they can answer those questions for themselves.

“I certainly think it is very important that people know about outside interests in our state’s politics,” he said.