SC advocates say current contest shows need for "clean" elections

The current Republican presidential primary in South Carolina shows the need for the state to pass a "clean elections" law, according to advocates. 

On the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the "Citizens United" case, advocates called for South Carolina lawmakers to pass Rep. Joe Neal's clean elections bill, which he re-filed this week. 

In the Citizens United case, the court ruled that corporations have the same free-speech rights as people and that spending money on political ads is a protected form of free speech. 

In the last few weeks, South Carolinians are seeing the results of that ruling, with political action committees spending record amounts on TV ads in the Republican presidential primary. 

"It means that those of us in the public are not able, often times, to hear the truth about what a candidate has to say and what a candidate has actually done because of the influence of this money," says Rep. Neal, D-Hopkins, who has sponsored a clean elections bill every year since 2000. 

Brett Bursey, executive director of the South Carolina Progressive Network, says this election could be the catalyst for action. 

"South Carolinians, like myself and my wife, who are getting all these hang-up calls from robo-calls and our television being flooded with vicious ads, I think people around South Carolina are going to be saying, 'Oh, that's what you've been talking about for years,'" he says. 

Neal's bill would set up a voluntary system in which candidates would receive public money to run their campaigns if they agree not to accept private donations. The amount of public funds provided would vary with the office. Someone running for a state House seat would get $25,000, while someone running for state Senate would get $75,000. A candidate for a statewide office would get the average of the cost of the last two winning campaigns. 

Arizona, Maine and Montana already have similar laws, although a part of Arizona's was ruled unconstitutional last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. Neal's bill does not contain the provision that was overturned in Arizona, which gave additional public matching money to candidates if their opponents received more private donations. 

Critics say "clean elections" laws are unconstitutional because they dampen free speech in the form of political spending.

There's also the issue of cost. Publicly financing campaigns would cost South Carolina more than $10 million a year. But Neal says that's only $3.44 a year for each voting-age citizen, or less than a penny a day. 

Supporters also say clean elections would mean more people would run and serve. Virginia Sanders, vice president of the SC Progressive Network, says, "The current way political campaigns are financed makes it much harder for minorities and women to raise money for a campaign. Minorities and women do not have the same 'good ol' boy' network where they can pick up the phone and ask a buddy and they've got $5,000 or $1,000 donated to their campaign." 

If lawmakers pass Neal's bill, there would be a referendum on the ballot in November to let voters decide.