Sen. Glenn McConnell’s good friend, John Monk with the State Newspaper:

Bill aimed at out-of-state contributor
Multimillionaire generous to S.C. candidates

A state representative says he’ll introduce a bill to limit the influence of a New York multimillionaire and his nationwide network of deep-pocket political allies who have contributed thousands of dollars to S.C. candidates.

Rep. Herb Kirsh, a 30-year House veteran with a watchdog reputation, says his bill is aimed at Howard Rich, a New York millionaire linked to tens of thousands of dollars in 2006 campaign contributions to various candidates for the S.C. General Assembly and statewide office.

“I’m concerned one guy can put all that money in a race and get away with it,” said Kirsh, D-York.

Kirsh wants to limit the number of contributions a person can make through corporations.

Individuals can give $3,500 each election cycle to candidates for statewide offices, such as governor. The limit is $1,000 per election cycle for General Assembly races.

However, under a loophole in the state’s campaign finance law, a person with 10 corporations can give 10 times what an average person can. Full article

COLUMBIA, S.C. — State Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, said he hopes that a bill he’s supporting will give investors one more reason to put their money behind South Carolina start-ups.

Senate bill 287, the South Carolina Entrepreneurial Success Fund Act, would provide tax breaks to those who invest in funds that offer seed money to start-up businesses. The bill received a favorable report last week in the subcommittee of which Sen. Bryant is chairman and is gaining support among business leaders.

To be eligible, investors would need to create a seed fund of $10 million. The fund must be managed by a South Carolina taxpayer, and 70 percent would need to be invested in local companies that are three years old or younger.

The legislation would give those investors income tax credits worth 30 percent of the amount they contribute, with the total amount of credits not exceeding $5 million in a year.

Sen. Bryant said the bill complements the state’s endowed chairs fund, which encourages research at colleges and universities, and the South Carolina Venture Capital Program, which supports companies that want to expand in the state.

“I think it’s the jump-start our economy needs,” Sen. Bryant said.

to see full article

FYI, the feds have lifted the ban on cell phone numbers from being used by telebarkers. To avoid these calls, I’d suggest you either call 888-382-1222 or visit www.donotcall.govTo use this automated feature, you must calling from the phone that you want block.This boy’s got a cool mullet doesn’t he?

Wednesday 02.20.08 was dominated by H.3496, a bill to tighten up our DUI laws. Statistics show SC may be as high as 3rd in the nation for alcohol related deaths on our highways. All agree something’s got to be done to make our roads safer, yet there’s 46 opinions in the Senate as to the best way to make sure drunks are discouraged from getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Some will argue that treatment is the answer while others will argue that stiff penalties are the answer. Is our conviction rate acceptable? Is funding of our highway patrol the key? Do we need to lower the permissible .08% blood alcohol level? Do we need to take impairment into consideration? Many will argue that repeat offenders are the problem. Should we smack the first time offenders and bury the repeat offenders under the jail?
 
This bill creates a “tiered” system of penalties. In other words, penalties will be proportional to blood alcohol levels. This legislation strengthens penalties at all levels especially for repeat offenders.  This bill requires two readings of the Mirada rights.  This is a change to the current requirement. Currently a law enforcement officer must “mirandize” the accused offender three times. This triplicate reading of rights has been found burdensome to law enforcement officials.
 
 
Interestingly, the SC House GOP Caucus blasted the Senate version. They claim:  “Now that the House version is back home, we can put teeth back in our DUI laws and debate this in a conference committee.” I’ve only been here 4 years, but I can’t imagine how they can claim to have a bill in their hands before it gets 3rd reading in the Senate. Evidently, this release was written before the Senate finished its work on the bill. I think someone is getting trigger-happy with the Outlook “send” button.They accuse the Senate for weakening the bill, yet the claims point to House language that the Senate agreed to. click here to view the press release.
 
 
Simply put, the House can neither “concur” or “non-concur” on a bill until they get it. If H. 3496 gets a “non-concur” from the House, a conference committee will settle the differences. H. 3496 received 3rd reading to day (Thurs 02.21.08), but they won’t have the opportunity to take this vote until next Tuesday, since they went home early.

Thursday morning (02.21.08) at 11:00 am we’ll have a press conference to unveil the bill calling for all government expenditures to be posted on the internet. Through blog posts and e-mails, I’ve got some suggestions on what to name the soon-to-be-filed bill.

Sunshine Legislation I posted last week:
“Stop Letting Government Define Freedom Act”
“Freedom of Information Reform Act”
“let’s make information free act”
“FOI system is broke let’s fix it act”

“Further Erase Home Rule Act”
“Reveal Economic Development Act”
“Give the Legislature More Reasons to Control Act”
“Give Bryant Another Bill That Will Never Pass Act”

others:
“right for the taxpayer to know how his/her hard earned money is being spent act”
“reign in the leash on bureaucrats act”
“we’ve had more home rule that we can afford act”
“let’s hope Cindy Wilson has broadband act”

Thanks for all of the suggestions. The primary sponsor of the bill Sen. Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley) has chosen to name the bill “The Truth in Spending Act”. 

If you’d like to see an example of government gone wild click here

Thursday morning on The week in the Senate the topic was spending caps and transparency.