Posted on Mon, Jan. 14, 2008

A Legislative Conflict of Interest

By DON WEAVER

In the 20-year history of our organization, the S.C. Association of Taxpayers, our disagreements with legislators have usually been over tax-and-spend issues. We have always respected legislators for their personal sacrifices to serve the public good and are mindful of the diverse interests pulling them in different directions.

However, one recent controversy involving our Legislature and our judicial system is troubling, and raises serious questions about whether South Carolina’s judicial system has been compromised. How this impending issue plays out will have long-term implications for S.C. taxpayers and businesses across our state, if this latest trial lawyer courtroom strategy is successful.

The issue I’m referring to is the 13 lawyer-legislators who are representing clients in a class-action lawsuit against the payday lending industry in South Carolina, despite the fact that legislation restricting this industry will be a hot topic in this new session of the General Assembly. This number of lawyer-legislators lining up against an industry they themselves regulate is unprecedented, and raises a number of disturbing questions. After all, who elects the judges who will hear these cases? You guessed it — legislators, including those same lawyer-legislators who stand to make a lot of money suing the payday lending industry.

But there’s more.

According to published reports, a Myrtle Beach man who testified before a Senate panel last spring about his problems with payday lenders is now being represented in this class-action lawsuit by — you guessed it — some of the same state senators who serve on the panel that heard his testimony! While no one should begrudge any legislators from legitimately using their contacts to expand their respective businesses, this type of blatant conflict of interest tarnishes the public’s attitudes toward our public servants.

And what will happen when this lawsuit actually reaches the courtroom? Certainly, the notion of lawyer-legislators appearing before the judges they elect is not new. What is new, however, is the sheer number of lawyer-legislators who will appear in a courtroom before a judge who depends upon them for re-election to the bench. This is the unprecedented action that should cause all South Carolinians to wake up and see that we have a problem.

Regardless of how you feel about the payday lending business, it is a legal and regulated industry. The reality is that if this trial lawyer tactic of retaining a dozen-plus lawyer-legislators for litigation against businesses escalates, then every company in South Carolina is vulnerable: manufacturers, Realtors (of which I am one), store owners and virtually every other legal enterprise in South Carolina. The sky will truly be the limit if this new tactic in the courtroom succeeds.

So what should be done? At the very least, these lawyer-legislators can remove suspicions about a very clear conflict of interest by recusing themselves from considering or voting on legislation affecting payday lenders next year. At best, they need to seriously consider the appearance of 13 lawyer-legislators sitting before a judge whom they vote on and ask themselves if that is the future of justice in South Carolina.

Failing that, and if this suit nonetheless goes forward, we can rest assured that South Carolina will see more of these types of cases. In the end, it will be state taxpayers who will pay for these million-dollar settlements when industries choose to leave our state, and take their precious tax dollars and jobs with them.

Mr. Weaver is president of the S.C. Association of Taxpayers.

 

These are the names as mentioned in the above article:

Senator John Hawkins (R) Dist. No. 12 - Spartanburg Co.

Senator Vincent Sheehen (D) Dist. No. 27 - Chesterfield, Kershaw & Lancaster Cos.

Senator Luke Rankin (R) Dist. No. 33 - Horry Co.

Senator C. Bradley Hutto (D) Dist. No. 40 - Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell & Orangeburg Cos.

Senator David Thomas (R) Dist. No. 8 - Greenville Co.

Representative Fletcher Smith, Jr. (D) Dist. No. 23 - Greenville Co.

Representative Creighton Coleman (D) Dist. No. 41 - Chester & Fairfield Cos.

Representative James Harrison (R) Dist. No. 75 - Richland Co.

Representative Christopher Hart (D) Dist. No. 73 - Richland Co.

Representative Douglas Jennings (D) Dist. No. 54 - Chesterfield & Marlboro Cos.

Representative Todd Rutherford (D) Dist. No. 74 - Richland Co.

Representative Murrell Smith (R) Dist. No. 67 - Clarendon & Sumter Cos.

Representative James David Weeks (D) Dist. No. 51 - Sumter Co.