And what we are seeing is shocking. Our findings are enough to warrant multiple articles…

On February 18th, the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office presented its proposed budget in front of the Senate Constitutional Budget Subcommittee, in which two out of the five members have been recipients of class action opioid settlement funds as a result of their relationship with the Attorney General’s office during their tenure in the legislature.

Of interest currently are the law firms of Democrat State Senators Brad Hutto and Margie Bright Matthews, who were among those listed as recipients of settlement funds for litigating political subdivisions with the SCAG’s office for the South Carolina Opioid Recovery Act several times over the past four years. Both Senators sit on the Senate Constitutional Budget Subcommittee and are slated to vote whether or not to give SCAG’s proposed budget a favorable report.

Senator Margie Bright Matthews’s law firm, Bright Matthews Law Firm, LLC, which according to Facebook, focuses on criminal law, has been compensated for sitting in on multiple class action lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors with the SCAG’s office between 2023 and 2025 and has received approximately $23,334.30 in attorney fees.

Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto’s law firm, Williams & Williams, signed onto the same lawsuits with Bright Matthews, however, Williams & Williams made slightly more money, raking in approximately $123,964.77 on behalf of the local political subdivisions he represented.

In a November 6, 2025 hearing, the public waited with bated breath as the Senators questioned the Attorney General. Instead of investigating the “numerous credible allegations” against Wilson’s office, the Senate Oversight Committee treated the SCAG’s office with “kid gloves” as noted by FITSNews in its report.

There was even a reported whistleblower willing to testify to many of these allegations that allegedly met with at least one Senator of the committee, but was never mentioned during the hearing itself, with one comment overheard that someone must have gotten paid off. Would being on the short list of lawyer-legislators who received cuts of the SC opioid settlements explain why Senator Brad Hutto was so generous to Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Alan Wilson during the Senate Oversight Committee when tasked with investigating the office?

The first payment from these settlements was issued in January of 2023, with payments throughout 2024 and 2025. According to South Carolina Code 8-13-700 & 8-13-710, legislators are required to abstain from voting on matters with which they, or business associates, are receiving financial remuneration. Though the Attorney General’s office is not responsible for paying these settlement funds, as they were paid by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, one could argue that the opportunity to receive those funds arose because of actions taken by the Attorney General’s office, and as such, there might be opportunity to influence the present.

Is a legislator’s receipt of court-approved contingency fees from opioid litigation an “interest which may be affected by action of the governmental entity” with which the legislator is associated? We argue that these (and other) legislators have a financial interest that could be affected by legislative action.

According to vote records for the line items, more than one Senator whose law firm received these settlements that were made possible because of the large class action opioid lawsuits filed by SCAG failed to abstain from voting on the Attorney General’s budget within a year of receiving said funds.

To make matters more incestous, both Matthews and Hutto sit on the Senate Ethics Committee. You would expect role model behavior when filing Statements of Economic Interests, yet they never reported receiving the thousands of dollars from these settlements. Check out PDF versions of their Statements of Economic Interest HERE. The last section, “additional interests”, is where one might expect to find these disclosures…

The same lawyers that received settlement funds because of their relationship with the Attorney General’s Office get to decide how much taxpayer money the SCAG’s office gets for its budget. Does that seem like a conflict of interest to you?

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch Foundation

The post Will Legislators Who Profited From Opioid Settlements Vote on AG’s Budget? appeared first on The Washington Standard.

S.768, also known as the Homestead Act, was introduced and pioneered by Senate Finance Committee chairman Harvey Peeler. Peeler himself is nearly 80 years old and has held the same senate seat for 45 years.

On February 18th, Senator Lee Bright offered amendment 6 to the Homestead Act which would allow all taxpayers to receive the same property tax break, not only senior citizens.

“I understand the need to want to please seniors, but I think about our greatest generation and they’re, you know, in their upper 70s now…and they have kids and they have grandkids that are trying to survive this economy. I don’t think these cuts that pit generations against one another are a good idea.” [00:35]

Reimburse Taxpayers For Using Their Money for Failed Deals

“I’ve been gone for nine years and this budget has doubled…We gave Scout $1.3 billion. We gave the Panthers $130 million…I just feel like people are over-taxed.” [01:31]

For context, in 2023, the Senate voted 36-4 to give Scout Motors over $1.3 billion incentives package, including $400 million in cash. The only nay votes were Richard Cash, Tom Corbin, Shane Martin, and Danny Verdin.

In South Carolina, property taxes are collected at the local level and those governments set tax rates (also referred to as millage rates.) Bright commented on how Spartanburg County Council is very loose with their money. This same council has been in the news frequently for passing the second reading of a tax breaks package for a data center that has yet to be announced and has faced overwhelming backlash from residents.

“My county council, they meet just to give away money. I mean, it’s out of control…there’s just a total disconnect with the people. The people just get more and more upset. They see how highly taxed we are in the southeast and I know we are trying to make things better, but this is an opportunity to really do a huge benefit to our taxpayers.” [02:11]

Senator Jeffery Zell asked Senator Bright what the amendment “would cost in overall tax”, to which Bright replied, “It’s going to be about $400 million less than Scout in terms we can understand. So that’d be the number there.” [06:15]

Senate Tries to Kill Amendment Before Vote

Some senators did not respond well to Bright’s amendment, obviously irritated that they would be on record for voting against giving fair tax breaks to all of their constituents.

The bill’s author, Senator Peeler, tried to bribe Bright with “a seat at the table” if Bright withdrew the amendment. Senator Lee Bright refused, stating he does not want to go back on his word after committing to proposing it [22:32]. Bright remarks, “I’ll just go down swinging like I did when I was here before” [24:44], referencing the last time he was elected to the Senate in 2014.

Senator Larry Grooms attempted to alter the amendment with a “poison pill” by proposing to raise the exemption from $100,000 to $1 million, which Bright immediately objected to, recognizing it as a tactic to ensure the amendment would fail [29:40].

Senate Votes to Table (Kill) Amendment 32-10

After Senator Bright finished explaining the amendment and answering questions (some of which were just insulting to any taxpayer under the age of 65), Senator Danny Verdin of Greenville moved to table the amendment, which would kill it. 32 senators voted to kill the amendment, while 10 voted to pass it. Here is the final count:

The bill that did pass allows anyone 65 and older who has lived in the state for 10 years or more to receive a break on taxes for the first $150,000 of their property’s value, while those who have lived here for at least five years would only pay property taxes above $75,000 and anyone above 65 could claim $50,000 homestead exemption that is already allowed by law. S.768 is now headed to the House and is waiting for a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee.

All taxpayers should be disgusted that the majority of their senators think so little of them. These senators expect to spend your money and give you nothing in return. They love to discuss growth and act confused when they don’t understand why young people don’t buy land in their districts. I’m going to probably shock all of them when I say this: it’s because we can’t afford it.

These 32 senators should be ashamed of their vote and should not expect anyone under the age of 65 to vote for them. When they speak about getting their young people to stay in district, I hope you remind them of their folly. Bookmark this one.

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch

The post The Senate Just Told Everyone Under 65 to ‘Pay Up and Shut Up’ appeared first on The Washington Standard.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) is made up of four members of the Senate, four members of the House, and four individuals appointed by the Governor. The JMSC vets and qualifies all judges in South Carolina and has recently been under intense scrutiny, facing allegations of political favoritism with fatal consequences, enough to warrant the passage of a new bill promising “reform” in the House. While there are several to be analyzed, we are going to take a close look at one of the most consequential races that has eyebrow-raising financial correlations.

Jay Lucas: The Legislature’s Cash Cow

The presumed frontrunner is Jay Lucas, former Speaker of the House, who spent years shaping the uniparty culture of the state legislature, retired in 2022, and now wants a seat on the highest court in the state. Is it any wonder Lucas gave a parting gift of $190,202.74 to the House Republican Caucus on his way out? This gift dwarfs any given by legislators for all time, which allows a politician to donate unused campaign funds upon leaving office, typically to a nonprofit.

It was no secret in Columbia that Lucas had his eye on a judgeship. With a Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) filled with lawmakers who once served under him, a gift this substantial makes sense. But aiming straight for the top with limited previous judicial background? Now that is some real confidence in political insurance.

Justice John Few: The Democrat-Leaning Incumbent

The incumbent for this seat is usually the automatic favorite, who in this case is John Few. Once the “golden boy” of former Justice Jean Toal, Few climbed the judicial ladder quickly. However, on the bench, he has authored several left-leaning decisions, most notably striking down the Heartbeat Law in 2023.

Judge Blake Hewitt: The Young Progressive

Blake Hewitt currently sits on the South Carolina Court of Appeals, but he also has a worrisome history. According to filings, Hewitt has only ever donated to democratic candidates for political office, including Vincent Sheheen, Seth Rose, and Matthew Richardson. While it is obvious that Hewitt will not win this race, it is very reasonable to believe he will keep his seat on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Ralph Anderson III: The Legacy Candidate on Repeat

Rounding out the field is Ralph Anderson III, an administrative law judge since 2009 who is known for presiding over Rom Reddy’s case involving the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (DES). Anderson has long pursued higher judicial posts without success. His candidacy rests more on his father’s democratic legacy rather than any personal accomplishments.

South Carolina Judgeships are Based on Relationships, Not Judicial Record

This State Supreme Court race brings to light South Carolina’s core issue that is rarely touched by the media: instead of being based on the judicial record of the candidate, these races are too often decided by the relationships of that candidate.

Ever wonder why deep dives on judicial candidates are almost never featured by the mainstream media? It’s because the races are decided before they even start and the candidates are well aware of this fact. The ones who don’t have a shot are getting their names out there in order to strike a deal for a future judgeship if in return they pull out of the one they are currently running for at the given time.

Why is our Judicial Merit Selection Commission that is appointed by a Republican supermajority only considering either the politically greedy or obviously left-leaning candidates? Aren’t there any experienced judges in South Carolina with a solid history of holding the line for conservative issues? It’s hard to make a democrat incumbent look like the shining star, but somehow the JMSC did, and that accomplishment should be studied.

South Carolina’s judges are decided not based off of a contest of legal minds, but a contest of alliances. It doesn’t matter who the JMSC chooses with these options, the citizens lose either way. It just depends how quickly you want to lose.

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch

The post Four Candidates, One Party, Zero Accountability: SC’s Supreme Court Circus appeared first on The Washington Standard.

The Scary Details – Reverse Robin Hood

As described by former Rep. Jonathon Hill in his latest Bad Bill Sheet, H.4216 changes the state individual income tax in four major ways:

1. Establishes two tax brackets: 1.99% for all incomes up to $30,000 a year and 5.39% for all other incomes.
2. Eliminates all standard and itemized deductions.
3. Add a graduated deduction of up to $30,000 for those earning less than $110,000.
4. Conditionally lowers the top rate by 1% per year until it reaches 1.99%.

Attached to H.4216 is a fiscal impact statement that initially raises the income tax on roughly 24% of state taxpayers. Instead of eliminating the income tax like other states, your legislators want to play king of wealth redistribution and lower income households are the ones who suffer.

Find Out How Your Income Will Be Impacted

By plugging in your household’s 2025 income, filing status, and number of kids in your household to this interactive calculator, you can find out how your tax return will be impacted under H.4216. HUGE thank you to Palmetto Maple for creating this program for our use!

Note: This program only allows up to three kids to be claimed. It is important to remember that under H.4216, you will not be able to claim any deductions, which will impact all households with children and their tax return.

What They’re Not Telling You

If lawmakers wanted to genuinely reduce the taxpayer’s burden, they would eliminate the burden…of taxation. It’s that simple. There are countless ways state funding could (and should) be trimmed. In May, we reported that legislators solidified a $39 billion budget for FY 2025-2026.

Legislators even had an opportunity in May to give taxpayers an extra $1 billion surplus, but they decided to find a way to spend it since they had the extra money. They also funded state-sponsored abortions, built an $18 million walkway for MUSC, spent more than $13 million for Green New Deal USC battery study, and funded several Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives like $6 million to the Human Affairs Commission and another $6 million to the SC Sea Grant Consortium to study climate change.

And that’s just the beginning. Take all of those useless projects and multiple it by $30 billion or more.

House Passed H.4216 in May 2025

Shortly before gaveling out for summer break, the SC House passed H.4216 with a vote of 64 Yeas and 47 Nays. See how your legislator voted:

53 of those 64 yes votes are sponsoring this tax hike on the lower class.

Action That Must Be Taken Now

This bill is awaiting passage on the Senate floor. Contact your State Senator (emails below) and tell them to vote AGAINST H.4216 and tell them to instead eliminate the income tax by cutting useless spending (like some of the programs/projects we named above.) Don’t know who your senator is? Find out HERE.

Your legislators can cut taxes if they want to, you just have to give them a reason. Otherwise, they will continue to offer up slop like H.4216 with help from groups like Palmetto Promise and call it a tax break. Tired of having your intelligence insulted? Make your voices heard, sooner rather than later.

Full Email Contact List

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch

The post The Blue-Collar Tax Hike: See How H.4216 Hits Your Household + Immediate Action Steps appeared first on The Washington Standard.

Our nation was founded on Christian principles and is one of the reasons our republic has lasted for 250 years. History has taught us that freedoms are only preserved when morality is prioritized, otherwise society devolves into chaos. The Ten Commandments provide a moral foundation for children and is a wonderful addition to a well-rounded, classical education.

Related Post: Both S.C. Chambers Filed Their Versions of Bills to “Fix” SCDOT – And They Must Be Stopped

While this bill is well-intentioned, it has no enforcement and will act more as a feather in the cap of the legislature rather than addressing the root problems of federal- and state- run compulsory education overshadowing the discretion of local school districts. If passed, it will almost certainly face legal challenges as the three states that have already passed similar laws are now tied up in legal battles over this issue. Our suggestion for the SC General Assembly is to learn from other states and allow for a poster to be made available as an option, but not to require it.

Guaranteed Court Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld in a 1980 Kentucky case that requiring a public school to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39].

H.3217 mirrors this case and is guaranteed to be taken to court following enactment. Is taxpayer money being best used by paying for a losing legal battle or is there an alternative that avoids legal challenges?

Three states have passed similar laws and are all tied up in court: Lousiana, Arkansas, and Texas. Unless the South Carolina legislature has a big plan to challenge Stone v. Graham and is confident it can overturn this decision, legislators need to think long and hard about this piece of legislation.

Related Post: Inside the Meltdown: GOP Backlash Derails South Carolina’s Incumbent Protection Act (H.3643)

Make It An Option, Not A Requirement

The reason the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Stone v. Graham unconstitutional was because the government was mandating that something should be posted. Instead of mandating H.3217, what if instead the bill allowed for the Ten Commandments to be made available to teachers and allow the local school district and/or school to handle it from there?

While H.3217 may be rooted in good intentions, mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom is both legally precarious and unlikely to address the real issues facing South Carolina’s schools. Rather than risking taxpayer money on a guaranteed court battle, the legislature should consider its options, such as a voluntary approach by making the Ten Commandments available as an option for schools and teachers. This respects local control, upholds constitutional protections, and still allows students to benefit from a moral framework in their education.

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch

The post H.3217: Should The Ten Commandments Be Required To Be Posted In Classrooms? appeared first on The Washington Standard.

Following the release of our exclusive article that first highlighted the major problems with H.3643, Republicans across the state started pushing back on social media, contacting legislators to tell them not to pass the bill, and showed up in mass on the day of the hearing to the point there were people waiting outside and legislative staff had to open up an overflow room. 32 House sponsors removed their names from the bill. Many started advocating for H.3310, a much cleaner closed primary bill that had been filed by the SC Freedom Caucus and scheduled for a hearing immediately after H.3643. Inside the South Carolina Republican Party, the executive committee became heated over several email chains debating the pros and cons of these bills. Media picked up on the quickly escalating argument among party members, both in and outside of the club.

Many supporters showed up to speak in support of H.3310, a cleaner closed primaries bill introduced by the SC Freedom Caucus that was scheduled to be heard after H.3643. [PSWF/Alaina Moore]

The pressure from all of these factors started to boil over as the SCGOP poster child and primary bill sponsor Representative Brandon Newton gave an opening statement before opening public testimony to a room that was obviously against the bill, besides the one row of SCGOP insiders that had conveniently been scheduled to speak first, in favor of H.3643. Most notably missing from this line up was SCGOP Chair Drew McKissick, who ran an intense social media campaign and even penned an OP-ED to garner support for H.3643, which massively failed. Instead of facing his party and supporting his bill, McKissick sent former SCGOP Chair and current Newberry County GOP Executive Committeeman Chad Connelly in his stead to deliver supportive commentary.

Chad Connelly delivering comments in favor of H.3643. [PSWF/Alaina Moore]

Brandon Newton’s Meltdown

In Newton’s seven-minute statement, which resonated more as a five-year-old toddler justifying why they disobeyed their parents rather than a grown man and sitting legislator, he complained that the division of the two closed primary bills have “truly put I believe the party into a civil war” and that its the “nastiest” internal debate that he has ever witnessed in the party [03:12].

If you have paid any attention to internal battles of the SCGOP between its establishment and members over the past five years (which Brandon Newton has played a major role in), you know that this debate does not compare to previous strife. The difference with this debate was that the establishment was losing the majority.

In a move to punish opposing party members, Newton signaled that didn’t want to move either bill forward now. He highlights that Governor McMaster has already promised to veto either bill and that the Senate has “shown zero interest” in the topic. Newton stated that the General Assembly should not be asked to “create a kumbaya moment between two warring factions”. He urged the party to “unite around one idea” before asking the legislature to act. [Timestamps: 03:55 through 04:42]

FITSNews summarized everyone’s thoughts after watching Newton’s hissy-fit meltdown when he realized he had lost the majority of Republican support last week:

Key Candidates Who Spoke Out

Both GOP D-01 congressional candidates and military veterans Tyler Dykes and Alex Pelbath were in attendance and planned to speak. If H.3643 was passed, both candidates would be removed from the republican ballot. One of their opponents for D-01 is Representative Mark Smith a sponsor of H.3643 who spoke in favor of the bill. Dykes gave an impassioned speech against H.3643, stating that it would “not only ban myself and David Pascoe from being able to run for office, but very many large other numbers of people in this state who sacrificed their lives and were incarcerated to fight against the rigged elections that were happening in 2020.”

Related Post: Republican Leadership Takes Aim at David Pascoe, Schedules Incumbent Protection Act (H.3643) Hearing

“During that time I was fighting against the law system and defending myself in the courts and I was unable to vote in those party primaries…if this bill passes, I would be banned and not allowed to run for congress to represent seat D-01.” Dykes further explained that statistically, very few citizens vote in party primaries. “You’re actually knocking out 95%, 96% of the people from being able to participate and run for office.”

Dykes lamented on how this bill discriminates against military veterans and Gen Z. As a service member in the marine corp, Dykes stated, “When I was in the desert of 29 Palms, California, voting in the South Carolina primary was not at the top of my agenda.” As for Gen Z, Dykes added that it would result in the generation being “banned for three or four years after hitting 18 years old from being about to run for office.”

Tyler Dykes speaking against H.3643 that would disqualify his candidacy since he was prosecuted and jailed following attendance of January 6, 2021 and was not able to vote.

Alex Pelbath later posted on social media that he “was the only person they refused to let take the microphone.” In the same post, Pelbath slammed Representative Mark Smith for refusing to remove his name as a sponsor of H.3643, “demonstrating his commitment to establishment party leadership instead of allowing the voters in SC-01 to decide the outcome of this election.”

Committee Refuses to Take a Vote

At the end of the committee hearing, there was no vote that was taken for either bill, rather, Chairman Jay Jordan insinuated that the right bill has yet to be created.

“If this issue is going to be successful and we are going to go from sentiment to policy, which is where I think we are stuck right now, we are stuck with how we shape a sentiment into a policy.” Jordan continued, “And if we are going to create policy that is right and stands up to court testing…we’ve still got a ways to go.”

Chairman Jay Jordan (right), Representative Weston Newton (left) [PSWF/Alaina Moore]

Jordan said that his colleagues in the House have serious concern regarding not allowing unaffiliated voters to participate but also making the taxpayers foot the bill, “we are going to have to wrestle with that issue too.”

Jordan made it clear that they are not done with closed primaries, but rather “just beginning” the discussion.

Since the full hearing was posted under the wrong committee, to watch the full hearing from 1/21/2026 you will need to go to this link and click on the Ways and Mean Committee — Criminal Justice Budget Subcommittee from Wednesday, January 21, 2026.

The post Inside the Meltdown: GOP Backlash Derails South Carolina’s Incumbent Protection Act (H.3643) appeared first on The Washington Standard.

There are valid concerns necessitating reform of Title 59 and Title 63. However, state legislators appear to be throwing a bone at an aggrieved group of parents while simultaneously adding a few poison pills. This old bone has been chewed up and spit out several times, as much of what is listed as new “parental rights”, is already codified in other sections of the SC Code. Furthermore, this bill creates more administrative red tape while limiting state liability and broadening the definition of “parent”.

The best way to reaffirm parental rights is to roll back legislation that hinder those rights. Any bill that introduces a new article into the Code of Laws should be analyzed closely. The bills that should be supported are those that delete areas within the current code that usurp parental authority and distribute it to agents of the State or State funded entities. For example, a bill that begins: “Chapter #, Section # of the S.C. Code is amended by repealing…” is probably more effective than “Chapter #, Section # of the S.C. Code is amended by adding…”

While this bill does repeal two small sections of the SC Code, it doesn’t go far enough.

Before we jump into the main issues of H.4757, let’s take a look at what SC Code of Law already states about parental rights.

Rights & Duties of Parents According to SC Code of Law

Section 63-5-30 outline the rights and duties of parents in the South Carolina Children’s Code. This establishes that the mother and father are “joint natural guardians” of their children and are equally charged with their welfare and education. Both the mother and father have equal power, rights, and duties. Each parent also has “equal access and the same right to obtain all educational records and medical records” of their minor children, as well as the right to participate in their children’s school activities unless prohibited by order of the court. Neither parent shall forcibly take a take a child from the guardianship of the parents legally entitled to custody of the child.

Instead of adding a new article to the code, why not elucidate particulars that are already mentioned by adding a few words to this section?

H.4757 Redefines “Parent”

Section 3 of this bill redefines “parent” to include an “entity” or “an individual who has been granted medical decision-making authority over the child under state law or by court order.” This bill defines “medical decision-making authority” as “the power granted by the State to a nonparent to make important decisions regarding a child’s healthcare.”

In the case of court-appointed custodians, they are already given the ability to care for the medical needs, educational needs, etc. of a child in Chapter 7, Title 63. Furthermore, the SC Code already has made it clear that “caregivers” and “guardians” are not “parents.” So, why are we broadening the definition of a parent?

Legal loophole

This bill undermines parental rights AGAIN in Section 63-5-340(B) “Except as otherwise provided by law, this section, or by court order, a person or healthcare provider must obtain the consent of a parent of a minor before procuring, providing a referral for, or rendering healthcare to the minor.”

“Except as otherwise provided by law” renders the whole sentence unnecessary and useless. Why even add this section at all if you are just going to leave the largest loophole in the beginning of the sentence?

Unnecessary language

The rest of the language in Section 63-5-340 is unnecessary and is a duplicate of what is already found in the Code. 63-7-620, 63-7-20, 15-1-310, 44-61-310 among others. Why are we duplicating law that’s already on the books?

Bizarre Power Given to the Attorney General

Currently, SC Code outlines the process for people to submit complaints and includes checks and balances. Citizens can send complaints to the Local Education Agency (LEA), about the LEA to the Board of Education, and about the Board of Education to the Administrative Law Court. Once a person has gone through the appropriate reconciliatory steps to no avail, they can bring an action against any State Department to the Circuit Court.

In H.4757, that entire process is changed and gives broad, sweeping decision-making power to the Attorney General.

Section 59-28-350 of the H.4757 prescribes the steps a parent would take if they felt that their parental rights numerated in the bill are being infringed (which is already addressed in SC Code) but then turns around and grants the Attorney General the decision-making authority and power to dismiss any complaints made against the State in violation of the bill. H.4757 explicitly states that the Attorney General can “bring an action to enforce this section. Nothing herein limits the authority of the Attorney General, the State or any state agency or officer to institute or intervene in any proceeding.” (Section 59-28-350(F))

Binds Parent to the Will of the Attorney General

Should every parent (whatever “parent” means anymore) be looking to the Attorney General as their savior? The Attorney General is a lawyer who fights for the interests of the State.

Section 59-28-350 (H)(1-5) of H.4757 binds the parent to a process of appealing to the Attorney General (AG), who works for the interest of the State and its departments, prior to bringing an action against the department to the circuit court.

The bill requires that the circuit court dismiss any actions filed before “exhaustion of administrative remedies” from the Attorney General’s office. While it requires that the Attorney General commence an investigatory or remedial effort within thirty (30) days of the complaint, there is no deadline by which to decide and no telling how long it might take to “exhaust” that remedy.

Nowhere else in the SC Code of Laws is a person required to go through the Attorney General before appealing to the circuit court.The Attorney General must be served when any other state agency is served legal papers. He has no authority to order changes to department regulations or to existing law. This middleman blockade through the Attorney General that is presented in this legislation is not found anywhere else in SC Code.

If H.4757 passes, this will change the role of the SC Attorney General across the board and set a new standard of authority.

Grants Immunity to Entities

If the other sections weren’t alarming enough, this part of the bill goes full 1984 (or more like 1986) by granting legal immunity to entities that were deemed as acting in accordance with the “Parental Rights Act”.

Subsection (H)(6) would grant civil immunity to any entity which a parent alleges violated the act when the entity acted to comply with a written consent, authorization, or direction executed by a “parent” as defined in this section; or acts in substantial compliance with this article or written guidance or regulations issued by the Department of Public Health or by the Department of Mental Health implementing this section.” While it is laudable that we are no longer looking to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for guidance, the measly $100,000 cap reveals the true intention of this clause.

This section might not even allow a cause of action to be brought against an entity that believes it has acted in pretty decent compliance with the bill. So…any entity that is “acting in substantial compliance with” the Parental Rights Act, complying with the wishes of a State defined “parent”, or following the guidance of the Departments of Public Health and Mental Health is protected from any cause of action which may be brought against it by an alleged violation of the act.

Potential For Backfire

Other states like Florida and Idaho that have implemented similar laws have suffered unintended consequences. To avoid the $5,000 per violation penalties, schools may start providing permission slips for everything. For example, getting a bandaid from a school nurse, participating in a routine vision screening, may result in parents being overburdened by the sheer volume of paperwork and teachers buried in more red tape rather than spending time in the classroom.

Because the bill allows for the recovery of attorneys fees, law firms may actively seek out parents to file suits and school districts may have to divert portions of their budget from classrooms to legal defense and increased insurance premiums.

There are other concerns regarding the contents of this bill such as a one-year statute of limitations (typically 2-3 years for most disputes in SC) and ambiguous subjective legal terms like “good faith compliance”, “good faith effort”, “on its face”, and “substantial compliance” by which the grounds for hearing a case could be decided.

The Silver Lining

There is at least one good portion of this bill and that is SECTION 6, which repeals current SC Code 63-5-350 and 63-5-370. This is what a true parental rights bill looks like.

Where is the H.4757 Now?

H.4757 is scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, January 20th, 2025 in the House 3-M Medical and Health Affairs Subcommittee, located at the Blatt Building in Room 110. You can see the full agenda HERE.

Special thanks to SpartanburgCAN for their assistance in this analysis of H.4757.

UPDATE: H.4757 passed with a favorable report by a vote of 4-2 in the the House 3-M Medical and Health Affairs Subcommittee with two amendments. It will now go to the full committee, hearing is TBD.

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch

The post Parental Rights Act (H.4757): Trying To Do The Right Thing In The Wrong Way appeared first on The Washington Standard.

Just last month, this outlet released a deep dive on data centers moving to South Carolina, including Google’s recent announcement of $9 billion investment into the low country. South Carolina currently has roughly 31 data centers that are either operational or under construction. Palmetto State Watch also held an in-depth discussion with the public on the “good, bad, and the ugly” of these data centers that is recorded HERE.

On December 8, 2025, the Spartanburg County Council was expected to vote on a second reading of an ordinance to approve a tax incentive package for an unnamed company that wants to invest over $3 billion in a data center known as Project Spero. This is not an unusual strategy to take, as conglomerates like Google and Meta (Facebook) also used code names in South Carolina to receive tax incentives before announcing their business name to the public.

According to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the second reading is typically when the company seeking an investment deal is made public. County Administrator Cole Alverson told the Spartanburg Herald that the company asked for the the vote to be delayed.

Several Spartanburg county citizens voiced their concerns during public comment at the December 8th meeting regarding strained infrastructure, environmental impacts and “backroom deals”.

State Representative Sarita Edgerton (R) was one of these citizens. We spoke with Representative Edgerton, who delivered many negotiating points to Spartanburg County Council, OneSpartanburg INC (the county’s chamber of commerce-turned nonprofit), and the county administrator if the county “must” continue approving data centers.

“These companies need to be required to employ a certain percentage from within the county. Set levels of guaranteed revenue or they lose any tax exemption if these levels aren’t maintained, must be self-sustaining not a drain on water and power. This is called a closed loop system. GE in GVL makes a turbine that can help with that. No special tax rates.”

“Why are we giving the richest companies in the world FILOTs and tax breaks?” Edgerton continued, “These backroom deals and NDAs make the public distrust our government even more than they already do. I was then told by a councilman that I (from Columbia) didn’t need to interfere with the way our county is run. I live in the county and I represent 42,000+ county residents so I have every right to speak up. I was then told to sit down and be quiet or I would be escorted from the room by police.”

This councilman was Spartanburg County Council’s only democrat member, Monier Absaft.

Concerned citizen Cheryl Tillotson shared her thoughts in-person and online as well, adding that this $3.1 billion investment is only going to produce 27 jobs. “…My question is: what kind of jobs are we talking about?” Tillotson added, “When I did some research on other facilities of this nature in other areas I found that the main jobs produced are typically low wage, term-limited, non technical positions such as security, maintenance, and janitorial work. Not long term career opportunities for local residents.”

Tillotson highlighted the known fact that data centers increase utility rates through power usage or through costs of infrastructure upgrades that residence end up paying for. “In Clark County, Illinois, energy prices for residential consumers have increased 20.7%; In Lafitte, Louisiana, a 39% increase; in Michigan, electricity rates have increased by 25%.”

In April 2025, NorthMark Strategies received tax incentives from Spartanburg County Council and is expected to invest $2.8 billion in its data center that is supposed to create around 27 jobs.

Spartanburg is not the only county pushing back. Dylan Nolan from FITSNews recently covered the Colleton County Council’s December meeting to amend its zoning process to facilitate the construction of a 859-acre data center near Green Pond, SC. Hundreds of citizens and several politicians filled up a civic center to share their perspective regarding this project, which you can watch below.

A petition to “Stop Data Centers Coming to Upstate, SC” has garnered nearly 1,000 signatures and several comments. The petition calls for Spartanburg County Council and Cherokee County Council, as well as the State of South Carolina to call for moratorium on data centers until adequate regulations are enacted and to host a public forum to have a discussion on community concerns.

The next Spartanburg County Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2026 at 5:15pm. It will be held at the Spartanburg County Administration Building, located at 366 North Church Street. The meeting will be livestreamed (but not recorded) HERE.

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch Foundation

The post Petitions, Protests, & Power Bills: Spartanburg Faces Data Center Debacle appeared first on The Washington Standard.

The Devil in the Details

Google has revealed that it is behind what has been known as “Project Dawson” data center proposals after at least 18 months of secrecy. The company plans to invest $510 million into a 231-acre site in Dorchester County’s Pine Hill Business Campus. Google accomplished this deal behind the company names of Autumn Timber LLC and Mallard LLC, the former based out of Delaware. Dorchester County Council voted unanimously to rezone the land. According to the Post & Courier, just last fall “the county approved a package of tax breaks, a water-service agreement and a real estate transaction to seal the deal.”

Google also used the aliases Project Evergreen and Gannett Enterprises LLC to purchase 206 acres for a third data center near Winding Woods Commerce Park outside of St. George. Google currently owns the Pine Hill data center that is located very close to Winding Woods. Furthermore, the county also agreed to sell the county-owned land at the Pine Hill location to Google for half of the price that was advertised on its website. The hot deal was sold to Google for $5.84 million which is around $21,760 an acre. While there are not many details, Google received “historic tax breaks from Dorchester County and a discount electricity deal from Dominion Energy” as reported by David Wren at the Post and Courier. As (another) added perk, the operator will receive a complete refund of taxes on personal property.

Maximum Hype, Minimal Jobs

The next few weeks and most likely into the new legislative session, you will see SC elected officials tout this “investment” as “economic growth” that will bring “new jobs.” But just like the rest of these deals, it will cost South Carolinians everything, and give them next to nothing while giving away the farm.

As an example from another part of the state Meta/Facebook is planning an $800 million data center in Aiken County (specifically the Sage Mill Industrial Park in the Graniteville area) that is supposed to create 100 “operational jobs” and will be optimized for AI workloads. Which makes you wonder…how many jobs will there be when the AI dust has settled?

This seems to be another grossly misleading statistic, as many times a data center only requires 20-50 full-time staff positions (according to several different sources, averaging roughly around 30 jobs.)

Between the two new Google sites, there are a projected 200 new operational jobs that are supposed to be created.

Massive Energy Bill Passage Comes Back to Haunt SC

In South Carolina, major data center projects under construction already project the need for roughly 800 megawatts of power daily, which is enough to strain electric infrastructure. As a comparison, a single megawatt is enough to power between 400 to 900 homes in a year.

As Google builds and expands data centers in South Carolina, it will answer the prayers of power-hungry legislators who have been waiting to ramp up the energy infrastructure on the taxpayers’ dime, just like they did during the 2024-2025 legislative session that allowed ratepayers to be charged before state-subsidized nuclear construction was ever completed. This isn’t the first time that language has been added to a bill that ended in catastrophe that ratepayers are still paying off. In 2017, Fairfield County nuclear facility had a huge failure regarding VC Summer 2 and 3 reactors, resulting in bankruptcy, top officials going to jail, and the surrounding ratepayers flipping the bill eight years later. So what did our legislators do last year? Vote for it again by passing H.3309 that included the same language. How did they pass this? Legislators and power companies fear-mongered power brownouts, some in Republican legislators even stated its been happening (even though residents stated otherwise.)

As pointed out by the South Carolina Policy Council, language was removed (Section 44) from H.3309 by Representative Gil Gatch of Goose Creek that would have protected residential electricity customers from rate-hikes caused by data centers. 88 State Representatives followed suit and voted for this amendment, with only 13 voting against (only Democrats.) Check out how your representative voted HERE.

I, along with the South Carolina Policy Council (SCPC), and several other legislative watchdogs warned of this dangerous bill during the legislative session, yet it fell on deaf ears. I wonder why?

Data Centers Suck Local Resources

Data centers have become infamous suckers of local resources like water and energy. A 2024 study estimated that U.S. data centers consumed around 17 billion gallons of water directly for cooling in 2023, with projections indicating this could double or even quadruple by 2028.

For comparison, the average American family consumes around 109,500 gallons a year. If U.S. data centers only consumed 17 billion gallons of water a year, it would take the average American family over 155,000 years to consume the amount of water U.S. data centers used in a single year.

The United States has an estimated 4,200–5,400 active data centers, depending on how analysts define and count facilities. As of mid-2025, industry trackers show hundreds of U.S. data centers under construction and more than 1,500 announced or planned.

The current Google site located in Berkeley County is listed as the third most water-intensive among Google’s U.S. data centers, consumed over 763 million gallons in 2023. To keep up, Berkeley County and Charleston Water System are planning to supply an extra 5 million gallons per day to support the expansion. Of course, this will not be cost-free. Utilities must build pipelines, pumping infrastructure, and manage permit compliance whose price tag is often passed to the customers.

Currently, South Carolina law does not require public reporting on surface or groundwater usage from data centers so South Carolinians will have no way to verify whether they are being upcharged due to the data centers moving into their area.

SC Dept. of Commerce Rolls Out the Red Carpet

As we have learned through nearly every single deal South Carolina makes with a gigantic, global corporation, the SC taxpayer gets to foot the bill for everything. Just take a look at the Scout Motors/Volkswagen deal that is still raping the small town of Blythewood.

When you go to the South Carolina Department of Commerce website, they give you several ways that businesses can get around either corporate taxes or sales taxes for new move ins.

The SC Commerce website brags that South Carolina’s Corporate Income Tax Rate is the lowest in the Southeast, sitting at only 5%. On the other hand, South Carolina has the highest individual income tax rate in the Southeast, capping at 6.2%.

However, that 5% can be eliminated. That 5% corporate income tax is only placed on what is sold in South Carolina and the SC commerce’s website boasts that there are many “credits and methods to reduce and eliminate corporate income tax liability.” Employees’ of these global corporations incomes will be taxed more than the income of the corporation itself.

Here’s the icing on the cake: these corporations are only charged sales tax on the good that are sold within the borders of South Carolina. Any goods sold outside of South Carolina are exempt.

FILOT Incentives

A Fee-in-Lieu of Tax (FILOT) agreement allows large corporations to drastically reduce their property-tax burden by lowering their assessment rate—often from 10.5% to 4%—and locking it in for up to 50 years, along with exemptions on equipment and personal property. According to analysis done by the South Carolina Department of Revenue and the South Carolina Policy Council, these incentives save major companies tens of millions in taxes while shifting more of the local tax load onto residents and small businesses.

South Carolina’s “Fee-in-Lieu of Tax” (FILOT) program has once again been deployed to subsidize Google’s expanding footprint. In Berkeley County, Google’s FILOT agreement was formalized back in December 2010 and has remained in effect along with other added benefits. A review by Good Jobs First uncovered that in 2006, Google applied for subsidies under a shell company specifically created for expansion. The review goes into great detail and notes that some of Google’s campus paid a yearly property tax of $10 and that local subsidies are for 50 years.

It is important to note that none of the core financial terms are publicly available online and it does not appear that the terms were re-opened or renegotiated. That means that 15 years later, one of the world’s wealthiest corporations is still benefiting from a tax-cut deal made in 2010.

Dorchester County’s deals are even more opaque. While officials have loudly touted “historic tax breaks”, the county has not published a single FILOT ordinance or finalized fee agreement for either the Pine Hill or Winding Woods data centers.

What is known—from the county and through reporting from the Post & Courier—is that Dorchester approved a suite of incentives: steeply reduced property taxes through a FILOT-style arrangement, a full refund of personal-property taxes (meaning servers and equipment are effectively tax-free), a county land sale to Google at roughly half the posted price, and a preferential energy-pricing deal negotiated with Dominion. Public statements indicate Google may have been granted a 4% assessment ratio locked in for decades, but the actual contractual terms remain concealed behind codenames like “Project Dawson,” “Project Evergreen,” Autumn Timber LLC, Mallard LLC, and Gannett Enterprises LLC. If the agreements exist, they are either withheld from online posting or filed under these shell companies.

Other Incentives

As noted by the same report from David Wren, the proposed contract between the Dorchester data center and Dominion Energy gave a special “economic development rider” rate of 6 cents for every hour of power which is less than half of the 14 cents residential customers pay.

Most of the proposals, contracts, and packages are not publicly available which leads us to wonder how many incentives were Google and their shell companies given? We may never know, but it’s safe to say that all of the surrounding residents will end up paying for rate hikes, even if the data center decides to leave.

South Carolina is prostituting itself to these large businesses while their citizens and small, local businesses are getting the short end of the stick.

SC Politicians Get Involved

Lieutenant Governor and current gubernatorial candidate Pamela Evette celebrated Google’s announcement, stating that it will grow South Carolina’s workforce. “Google’s significant investment in our state represents a strong commitment to South Carolina’s growth and prosperity,” said Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette. “This expansion will strengthen our workforce, prepare our people for the jobs of the future, and keep South Carolina at the forefront of AI innovation — creating a brighter future for all our residents.”

South Carolina Attorney General (SCAG) and another gubernatorial hopeful Alan Wilson has previously taken his own cut of the Google pie when he jumped on to a multi-state lawsuit suing the company and receiving a $7.8 million settlement in 2022. The lawsuit included allegations that Google was misleading users into thinking their location tracking was turned off when it was not.

“Economic Development” Sellouts

South Carolina leaders continue to market these massive data center deals as “economic development,” but the pattern is now unmistakable: global corporations walk away with unprecedented tax breaks, discounted land, cheap energy, and agreements that never see the light of day, while the public absorbs the costs in higher utility bills, strained infrastructure, and a shrinking tax base. When will legislators stop bending over backwards for multinational giants? Until that day, South Carolinians will remain the subsidizers, not the beneficiaries, of this so-called “growth.”

Article posted with permission from Palmetto State Watch Foundation

The post Boon or Burden? Google Invests $9B Into South Carolina Data Centers appeared first on The Washington Standard.

The Facts

The South Carolina General Assembly passed Act 69 (Session 126), which included Proviso 91.3, which stated, “All members of the General Assembly shall receive an in-district compensation of $2,500 per month.” This is over double the current compensation of $1,000 allotted a month that was set in 1994. This would allocate an extra $25,500 per legislator prior to their election in November of 2026. While legislators have to swear to uphold the South Carolina constitution, the majority voted in clear contradiction as Article III, Section 19, which states that “no General Assembly shall have the power to increase the per diem of its own members.”

According to FITSNews, “this vote to insert pay raises was requested by state senators Shane Martin, Matt Leber and Darrell Jackson.”

This proviso took effect during the same legislative term that it was approved, meaning that the legislature voted and approved an increase for themselves while they were still in office. This proviso was approved by Governor Henry McMaster and would have cost taxpayers around $4.3 million between now and November 2026.

State Senator Wes Climer and state retiree Carol Herring sought a writ of injunction (i.e. a lawsuit) this past June that would prevent the state treasurer from disbursing the increased compensation that otherwise would have taken effect immediately. The lawsuit also named President of the S.C. Senate Thomas Alexander and Speaker of the S.C. House of Representatives G. Murrell Smith Jr. as defendants.

The State Supreme Court’s Ruling

The South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion not only touched on the proviso’s unconstitutionality, but also the vagueness in which it was written, permitting misuse of taxpayer funds outside of official costs. “…the General Assembly has given us nothing on which to presume the money budgeted for in the proviso will be used only for official expenses—in fact, as Petitioners argue, the signs point to the contrary.”

“Specifically, the language of the proviso itself states it is for “in-district compensation.” (Emphasis added). There is no other language in the proviso or the Act as a whole that even hints that the amount of in-district compensation is characterized as true “compensation” (i.e., gross income) for the purposes of both federal income taxes and retirement benefits,” noted chief justice John Kittredge and concurred by all four associate justices in the opinion that was released on on the 12th.

“Notwithstanding this Court’s strong and longstanding respect for the separation of powers and legislative deference, where a legislative enactment clearly contravenes our constitution, we have a duty to declare the legislative enactment unconstitutional…It is for this reason that we are constrained here to find that Petitioners have met their burden to show the proviso is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how well-intentioned or long-overdue, the result of the 126th General Assembly’s increase in in-district compensation without either limiting language in the proviso or delaying implementation of the increase to the seating of the 127th General Assembly is to increase its own compensation, which our state constitution expressly prohibits. We therefore permanently enjoin payment of the funds covered by the proviso.”

Legislators Weigh In

“Today’s ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court affirms what I’ve said all along: legislative compensation should never be increased midterm, and certainly not by stealth,” Current State Senator and U.S. Congress candidate Wes Climer commented. “Public trust is earned by doing the right thing, even when it’s unpopular. I opposed this pay raise not because the job isn’t demanding, but because how we govern matters. I’ll continue to stand up for transparency, accountability, and integrity in how the General Assembly conducts the people’s business.”

While many rejoiced, some sitting democrats were critical of the State Supreme Court’s decision. State Representative Hamilton Grant posted on X, “An unfortunate decision that could impact the legislative service to constituents. With community investment funds gone and now in-district expenses gone, SC is hell bent on not taking care of actual South Carolinians”.

No one is arguing that legislative pay should be frozen in 1994. Adjusting compensation for inflation is reasonable if we want qualified citizens to be able to serve without going broke. However, this decision highlights a deeper issue…South Carolina’s legislature is in Columbia too often, doing too much. Every time lawmakers head to the capital, the taxpayers pay for per diem, staff, and a constant stream of new laws, government programs, and spending that is always guaranteed to follow. Big government doesn’t grow in silence, it grows when the General Assembly is in session.

If the legislature wants to revisit compensation, they should start by revisiting their own devastating footprint. If the legislature can’t meet without increasing the tax burden and the reach of an already overextended government, then maybe their time should be limited in Columbia.

The Court’s ruling isn’t just about constitutional adherence, it’s a reminder that good governance starts with restraint: restraint in spending, restraint in legislating, and restraint in self-interest. South Carolina taxpayers deserve nothing less.

Article posted with permission from Pametto State Watch Foundation

The post State Supreme Court Rules Legislator Pay Raise Unconstitutional appeared first on The Washington Standard.