SC Senate: Transparency An Unconstitutional Fad

The passage of South Carolina House of Representatives bill H3047 which would require “certain” votes in the General Assembly to be on the record has been sent the State Senate.  Beaufort Senator Tom Davis is trying to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

KA-BOOM!

The forces of secrecy, status quo and buffoonery jumped on him like Jake Knotts on a pastry cart.  In fact, Senator Jake considers the legislation “very, very insulting” to the Senate.  Like HE isn’t?

Senators Larry Martin and Glenn McConnell called it “a fad.”  McConnell further referred to the idea of transparency as “a ragged piece of legislation.”

I asked Senator Davis for his reaction to the vitriol towards the bill. 

The good news is that, as a result of my motion, a subcommittee hearing on the bill has been scheduled for next Wednesday.

I don’t think the bill is any of those things and I welcome the opportunity to make my case at next week’s subcommittee meeting

To be clear, this is what H3047 proposes:

TO ENACT THE “SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2009”; AND TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-7-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS TO RECEIVE A RECORDED ROLL CALL VOTE AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THEIR PASSAGE BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.

Yeah… that’s pretty insulting.

I’ve asked for responses from Senators McConnell, Shane Massey and Larry Grooms, but, at this writing, they have not returned my emails.

Senators Tom Davis and Harvey Peeler – along with Representatives Nikki Haley and Nathan Balllentine – are champions of the voters’ right to know.  McConnell, Martin and Knotts, as well as any other senator that attacked this legislation, are electoral traitors and constitutional saboteurs.

So, you’ve got to wonder… Has there been a deal between House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Senate President Pro Tem McConnell to squash this legislation with as little damage to the keepers of the castle as possible?

The bill passed unanimously in the House (after two years of procedural obstruction).  The House is up for re-election this year, the Senate not until 2012.  Could it be that Harrell agreed to finally bring the bill to a vote and manufactured an anonymous passage to take the heat off his cadre of representatives in an election year?  The other half of the bargain would be for McConnell to bring it down in the Senate, which won’t have to worry about the backlash this year. 

That’s just speculation, mind you.  Surely such devious tactics wouldn’t be practiced by the “peoples’ representatives!”

That would be . . . insulting.

Thanks to Lee Canaday for the tip.

/CS/

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “SC Senate: Transparency An Unconstitutional Fad

  1. Pingback: SC Senate: Transparency An Unconstitutional Fad « The Political Inquirer

  2. Garnet Spy:

    You freakin’ NAILED IT! There had to have been a deal!

    It was also, I suspect, a way to try to kill the issue for Nikki Haley’s gubernatorial campaign–a bit of continuing revenge by Harrell on the rebel representative.

    Like

  3. Your theory that there was a deal seems spot on because it makes perfect sense as to how politicians “work”. However, the best part will be when Nikki Haley, in her inauguration speech, calls out these mofos like nobody’s business!

    Like

  4. Lord Acton’s words ring constantly in my ears: “Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely!” But for the few, fine examples keeping the flame alive, one would wonder if any elected official were capable of truly moral behavior.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Spartanburg Tea Party | *Action Item* Dastardly Doings in Columbia

  6. Thanks for this important post. It is interesting but not very surprising to see who is oppossing this simple legislation. Why is telling the truth a “fad?” And if asking someone to tell the truth is “insulting,” what are they trying to hide?

    Just wondering…

    Like

  7. I also think it would be wise to make sure that EDUCATORS K – 12 know about these politicans not wanting HR3407. Are they hiding where the money flows for a reason? Yes! McConnell, Knotts, Larry Martin would NOT be so upset about this bill like they are if how they vote was already transparent. They would see it just a confirmed way.

    Money could flow to the schools and taxpayers would not have to pay more taxes.

    Like

  8. The inner workings of ending public debate were more interesting than the arguments made by 4 REPUBLICANS. It was a “shut up and get in the room and don’t air this in public” show illustrated just how POLITICS are played. The ending by Knott’s showed just what game was truly being played. Rush always tells us to listen to the screaming; as it tells us what those screaming are truly afraid of…

    I so wanted to hear the Senator’s arguments on the floor of our Senate. If this Bill dies, then it is up to SC residents to put it on the ballot as an amendment and watch who opposes it.

    Like

  9. Pingback: Lighting Up Dark Government « The Garnet Spy

  10. Pingback: Lighting Up Dark Government « The Political Inquirer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s