South Carolina has certainly seen its fair share of controversy over the past few years, and today CREW has the state’s latest and greatest in its sights: mystery Senate candidate Alvin Greene.

We just called on the Attorney General of South Carolina, Henry McMaster, to investigate (PDF) whether or not Mr. Greene was induced to run for the Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint. Inducing a candidate to run is a blatant violation of South Carolina law.

Mr. Greene originally tried to pay the $10K filing fee with a personal check, which was rejected. He miraculously returned the same day with a new check with the name “Alvin M. Greene for Senate” handwritten as the payer. While he claims this money came from his personal savings account, he has to date refused to confirm this with documentation.

It looks unlikely that Mr. Green had this amount of money on hand. He was discharged from the Army in August 2009 and has been unemployed ever since. What’s more, in November 2009, when charged with obscenity for showing pornography to a USC student, he was assigned a public defender – a service usually reserved only for poor defendants.

CREW also filed a complaint (PDF) with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Mr. Greene and three other candidates in the June 8, 2010 South Carolina primary violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and FEC regulations by failing to file mandatory disclosure reports. Gregory Brown, Ben Fraiser, Brian Doyle and Mr. Greene all failed to file their mandatory April 15th Quarterly Report and 12-Day Pre-Primary Reports.

Additionally, Mr. Green failed to file a Statement of Candidacy for himself and a Statement of Organization for his campaign.

CREW’s Executive Director, Melanie Sloan, said today:

The people of South Carolina have a right to fair, transparent and fraud-free elections. Paying candidates to run for office and concealing the sources of campaign funds undermines the integrity of the electoral process and threatens our democracy.

And election law regulations – and their deadlines – exist for a reason. All candidates who are serious about representing the American public in our federal government should be able to perform such simply tasks as filing paperwork on time.

Read CREW’s FEC complaint and the complaint’s exhibits.

Read CREW’s letter to South Carolina Attorney General McMaster.

South Carolina's ethically tainted governor may not have been forced from office, but his actions will cut into his pocketbook. Late last week, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) agreed to a legal settlement over ethics issues in which he admits no guilt but pays more than $140,000 in fines and reimbursement.

A portion of this amount will reimburse the state for Sanford's use of state aircraft, high-priced airline tickets and other travel costs.

Also last week, a judge finalized Sanford's divorce from his wife, Jenny.

What is most amazing is that a governor like Sanford who has been so thoroughly discredited can continue to put out press statements with phrases such as this:

"I continue to maintain my belief in the innocence of my actions being judged by the Ethics Commission."

Unbelievable.

Critics enjoy slamming the Washington bureaucracy for moving so slowly, but the wheels don't seem to turn any faster in South Carolina. More than two months and one week after the State Ethics Commission charged Gov. Mark Sanford with 37 ethics violations, the panel has yet to hold a single hearing on the charges.

And don't expect one soon. Herbert Hayden, the commission's executive director, told The State newspaper why hearings have not yet begun.

The commissioners all have day jobs, Hayden said, and the Sanford hearing is expected to be a long day.

"It's strictly a scheduling issue," Hayden said, "With the assumed length of the hearing, it's going to have to be a special day set aside."

However, the case could be disposed of before a hearing if Sanford and the Ethics Commission agree to a settlement.

At this rate, I'm beginning to wonder if a new governor will be elected by the time the S.C. commission completes hearings on its own charges.

If you need a reminder as to why Gov. Sanford is such an ethically disgraced official, click here, go to page 4 and read "Gov. Mark Sanford's Excellent Argentinian Adventure."

By a margin of 102-11, the South Carolina House of Representatives has voted to censure its ethically disgraced governor. According to the Associated Press:

Before the vote, (Gov. Mark) Sanford said he wouldn't attend the session or watch and would have no comment. "It is what it is," Sanford said.

... The censure requires state Senate approval for passage.

... In addition to the censure, Sanford also faces up to $74,000 in fines from the State Ethics Commission, which contends he broke more than three dozen laws involving travel in pricey airline seats, using state aircraft for personal and political trips and improper reimbursements.

Gov. Sanford's serious ethical lapses were cited last month by CREW when we released our Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009. Click here to read this document -- the Sanford scandal is summarized on page 4.

The South Carolina House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a resolution that formally censures Gov. Mark Sanford for "dereliction in his duties of office as Governor and for official misconduct that has brought dishonor to himself."

Click here to read the text of the resolution that the SC House will consider.

A state House committee declined last month to approve an impeachment resolution, opting instead to support a censure of the GOP governor.

The state House of Representatives in South Carolina is expected to vote next week on a motion to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his serious ethical lapses. But here's the catch.

The SC Senate might not vote on censure for several weeks -- or it might never vote. That's the assessment of Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who suggested to a newspaper that it's no big deal whether the state Senate votes on censure or not:

At the end of the day, what does it matter? Either you approve or disapprove. I don't know anybody (in the Senate) who supports (Sanford's) behavior."

But McConnell is missing the point. There is value in having both houses of the Legislature go on the record with a formal vote of censure. If nothing else, doing so reaffirms the Legislature's commitment to holding state officials accountable.

If both houses of the SC Legislature have the time to vote on a resolution honoring a Union County library for being named "the best small library in America," then surely both houses can take the time to vote on the motion to censure Gov. Sanford.

In case you missed it, CREW named the Sanford scandal one of its Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009.

Last month, CREW announced its legal settlement restoring and preserving White House emails from the George W. Bush years. It was a nice victory. But what about state government? Are governors and other state officials preserving emails and other records?

This issue has come to light in South Carolina, whose legislature has been probing the serious ethical issues surrounding Gov. Mark Sanford. John O'Connor, a reporter for The State newspaper, writes:

Questions about Sanford's activities led to scrutiny of past administrations and lawmakers.

Reporters and attorneys digging through state archives found that many records no longer existed. The S.C. Department of Archives and History recommends which records should be preserved. But director Eric Emerson said his agency does not have the staff to make sure state agencies are complying with the rules.

And, even worse, the Legislature has yet to insist on stronger recordkeeping rules for state officials:

Lawmakers investigating the governor this summer compared missing records to the destruction of evidence. But none of the legislation so far filed in response to the Sanford scandal addresses the preservation of e-mail and other documents.

According to the Associated Press:

South Carolina lawmakers voted Wednesday to formally rebuke Gov. Mark Sanford, again sparing him from impeachment over secret trips to see his Argentine mistress and his use of state planes.

The House Judiciary Committee unanimously agreed to censure the governor for bringing "ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame" to the state. Though scathing, the rebuke has no practical effect on Sanford’s ability to govern for the 13 months that remain in his term.

... Despite pleas from some members to let the full House consider impeachment, the Judiciary Committee voted it down 18-6.

Our last blog post turned out to be an accurate forecast. A subcommittee of the South Carolina state House voted down an impeachment resolution against Gov. Mark Sanford this afternoon.

The subcommittee's vote was 6-1 against the impeachment resolution. The subcommittee’s chairman was the only legislator to vote for impeachment.

According to Politico:

The news means Sanford will likely serve out the rest of his term, as the will to oust the governor has been waning in the months since he admitted to an affair with an Argentine mistress.

... If the impeachment resolution is indeed voted down by the full Judiciary Committee, South Carolina lawmakers are likely to vote on a resolution censuring the governor instead.

Years ago, a governor who had done the things that Sanford has done would resign right after they came to light. But Sanford seems content to keep collecting a paycheck as a lame-duck governor.

A few months ago, there was a lot of talk among South Carolina legislators of impeaching their governor. But the momentum for driving the ethically-challenged Gov. Mark Sanford from office appears to have slowed.

A vote on impeachment could come later today, but according to this S.C. newspaper only one of the seven legislators who will cast a committee vote on this matter has said publicly that Sanford deserves to be impeached.

And Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at S.C.'s Winthrop University, tells the Wall Street Journal:

"Over the summer, people were just absolutely amazed and asking for his impeachment. Now it's just this head shaking, apathy and shoulder shrugs."

Very disappointing.