PSWForum

A South Carolinian’s Guide to Voting, PSW-Style

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

South Carolina’s June 9th, 2026 primary is quickly approaching and the field is saturated with candidates. There’s a reason why: many seats are wide open because the incumbent is leaving or the incumbent’s bad actions are finally catching up with them. And in case you haven’t noticed, in South Carolina the primary is where all the action is. By the time we roll around to the general election, it’s often a choice of the lesser of two evils, and we all know how that gives us a sinking feeling and creates apathy.

This election is a referendum on whether the status quo in Columbia continues unabated or whether South Carolinians finally elect enough candidates who will actually put citizens first. Over the past several years, our team has documented patterns of backroom deals, conflicts of interest, ethical violations, and a systemic disregard for the taxpayers who fund state government.

This guide distills our investigative reporting into concrete questions every South Carolina voter should ask before casting a ballot. Use it as a checklist. Share it with your community and hold every candidate accountable.

1) Financial Conflicts of Interest: Does the Candidate Profit from the Government They Oversee?

Elected officials find several ways to profit off of the government they oversee, whether that is directly or indirectly.

Our investigation into the South Carolina Attorney General’s Litigation Retention Agreements (LRAs) revealed a troubling pattern of certain lawyer-legislators collecting millions in settlement fees from the very office whose budget they controlled. Both Democrats and Republicans equally benefited. Two examples of some of the most powerful were the House Speaker and Ways and Means House Chairman. House Speaker Murrell Smith‘s firm received over $2.1 million from the SCAG’s office over the course of three years while he wielded budget authority over it. Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister‘s firm collected over $541,000 over two years from their LRAs while his committee wrote the AG’s budget.

The AG’s budget is looking at an 11.9% increase in appropriation of general funds (excluding federal dollars) in 2026-2027 over the previous year. For comparison, total general funds for the entire state budget are poised to increase by only 3.8% over the same period. It appears much of this is due to an increase in salaries/benefits and vague operating expenses. Did Bannister’s payday influence his willingness to be more generous with the budget of the Attorney General’s office?

Smith only reported the conflict on the most recent of the three Statement of Economic Interest reports (SEI) spanning this time frame and Bannister only amended his report to include the conflict for last year four days after our second article launched in this series. That was 11 1/2 months after the original report was due.

While we’re discussing conflicts of interest, can we talk about roads for a minute? Let’s take Rep. Travis Moore (R-Spartanburg) as an example. He has never once voted on the DOT section of the budget in his 6 years in office because of reported conflicts of interest. In fact, 34 Representatives abstained from casting a vote on the SCDOT’s budget this year alone, and these aren’t powerless backbenchers. They’re committee chairs, budget writers, and leadership, the people with the most authority over the very dollars they’re conflicted out of touching. That means more than 27% of legislators in SC are not even voting on roads due to conflicts of interest. Let that sink in for a minute. One or two conflicts of interest are one thing, but when a legislator is conflicted to the hilt — Moore abstained from 18 budget votes this year due to conflicts of interest, which accounts for 15% of the votes, and almost half of the state budget in dollars — is that a legislator who can even represent citizens well in Columbia?

The LRA money trail doesn’t stop at direct payments to legislators. Our investigation also found evidence that settlement proceeds appear to be finding their way back into campaign coffers through a web of shell LLCs with no internet presence and no brick-and-mortar addresses. Randy Lowell, the lead attorney on the $75 million Plutonium Settlement and a former partner at Willoughby & Hoefer, the same law firm where AG Alan Wilson worked before taking office, registered several companies like Copper Walrus Ltd. Co. and Iron Elephant Ltd. Co., both incorporated just six days after he signed his LRA with the AG’s office, which subsequently began appearing on campaign donor rolls. Using multiple LLCs, a single donor can effectively multiply the number of allowable donations beyond what state contribution limits permit for any individual.

Since 2010, Lowell’s companies have funneled over $81,000 into AG Alan Wilson’s campaign even though Lowell personally has not donated to Wilson by name in that same period. Those same LLCs also show up as donors to Stephen Goldfinch, who is running for SC Attorney General. The central question we raised: are attorneys’ fees generated by large, state-initiated settlements ultimately being recycled into the campaigns of the political establishment that made those settlements possible in the first place?

Questions to Ask:

  • Do you or your employer (or law firm if applicable) receive fees, contracts, or payments from any state agency, county, or government body you will be voting on?
  • Have you filed your Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) on time and completely? Have you ever amended it only after public scrutiny?
  • Will you commit to recusing yourself from votes that directly benefit your private clients or employer?
  • How many recusals will you have? Which ones?

Red Flags to Look For

Late or amended SEI filings, law firms with undisclosed state contracts, and vague answers about outside income. A candidate who can’t answer clearly on paper trail questions likely has something to hide.

2) Taxpayer-Funded Corporate Welfare: Will the Candidate Write Blank Checks to Big Corporations?

In 2023, the South Carolina legislature (with the support of several local and state officials) rammed a $1.3 billion incentive package for Scout Motors through in less than a week and had it on the the Governor’s desk in 60 days. Now in 2026, when they were scheduled to start production, Scout has built zero vehicles, is more than $150 million over budget, and has pushed its production start date to the end of 2027 at the earliest. The deal South Carolina cut was also estimated to be $300-$500 million higher than comparable incentive packages offered by competing states. Most of the state representatives that are seeking re-election voted in favor of this boondoggle. Senator Josh Kimbrell and Senator Stephen Goldfinch, who are candidates for state-level seats voted to pass this deal. Gubernatorial hopeful Lt. Governor Pamela Evette supported the move as Governor McMaster signed off on it. Senator Lindsey Graham even supported this deal.

The same pattern is repeating with data centers. In Spartanburg County, a $3.1 billion data center investment was negotiated, with the name of the company hidden. It turns out that the company behind this deal appears to be backed by Chinese money. Spartanburg dodged a bullet there. It’s bad enough these guys are collecting our data; what’s worse is the county officials are actually signing non-disclosure agreements so are going into these deals blind, not knowing what country is going to be collecting the data they’re putting in our back yards. To make matters worse, these deals often only produce a handful of jobs while residents are stuck with utility rate spikes as a result of increased power usage and infrastructure costs, not to mention a myriad of other headaches and potential unintended consequences. Water shortages are being seen nationwide, and the company that funded the one that was wooing Spartanburg is also involved in the private sale of water business. In the name of progress and development, we’re paving paradise and instead of putting up a parking lot, we’re building the most resource-intensive buildings we can build in today’s market.

Often the main drivers behind this economic development are the state and local Chambers of Commerce. Typically people laud the local Chambers of Commerce as champions for small businesses. Unfortunately, what people don’t realize when they get to Columbia, those local interests are drowned out by big business. For example, BlueCross Blue Shield is a founding (platinum, etc.) member in more than a handful of Chambers of Commerce around the state. That means that they pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to multiple Chambers around the state. Meta recently donated $75 million to Aiken County Chamber of Commerce Foundation. That money will drown out any local business interest from here forward in Aiken. Meta also arrived in Aiken under the secrecy of an NDA.

Let’s not forget the State Chamber was also a driver behind prolonged mask and vaccine mandates in the state back in the Covid years.

In 2025 the SC Chamber of Commerce, which is among the largest lobbies in Columbia merged with the SC Manufacturers Alliance, so form an even bigger lobby. Would it surprise you that our own Governor McMaster lauded this merger? In what alternate reality do we live in that a government would so openly flaunt their ardor for a lobby?

Another way we see local governments supporting business is through Fee-in-Lieu-of-Tax (FILOT) agreements. In Saluda County a solar company proposed locking in a 30-year tax break that would dramatically slash the county’s solar tax revenue. In every case, political insiders benefit while the taxpayers absorb the risk.

This is not about being against progress. This is about being against massive companies that have zero interest in our state coming in and setting up shop, getting massive deals on taxes, and then turning around and sucking all of those dollars out of our state so the local citizens are left with an eyesore of a massive industrial building, few jobs to show for it, and little hope for a revitalized main street. The incessant cascade of laws the legislators in Columbia pump out year after year create anti-competitive business environments and increasing amounts of red tape which largely impact small businesses, but can be absorbed easily by large businesses.

One of the subtler tests of whether a candidate is truly a fiscal conservative is to pay attention to what they say about federal and state dollars. Candidates who campaign on small government principles will often turn around and enthusiastically talk about how much grant money, federal matching funds, or state appropriations they plan to bring back to their district. What they rarely acknowledge is that every dollar of federal or state money they chase comes with strings, grows the bureaucratic apparatus required to administer it, and adds to the spending problem they claim to oppose. Accepting a federal grant is not free money. It is a vote for bigger government, just laundered through a press release about economic development. Scout Motors is a perfect example: legislators who pride themselves on fiscal conservatism lined up to hand over more than a billion dollars in incentives to a foreign-backed automaker that has yet to produce a single vehicle.

Questions to Ask:

  • If you support bringing federal or state dollars into your district, can you explain exactly what it costs taxpayers in the long run, what strings are attached, and how accepting that money does not simply grow the government you claim to oppose and bring left-leaning ideologies into our state that will now be required by law?
  • Will you require full public disclosure and a minimum 30-day public comment period before any FILOT, tax incentive, or corporate subsidy is voted on?
  • Do you support clawback provisions that require companies to repay incentives if job ad investment promises are not met?
  • Will you vote against incentive packages negotiated with unnamed “project” companies under NDAs until the company’s identity and terms are fully public?
  • Have you ever voted/will you support the state to invest taxpayer dollars in electric vehicles and foreign-owned companies?
  • What is your opinion of the State Chamber of Commerce/Manufacturers Alliance and will you be influenced by that lobby?

3) Election Integrity and Transparency: Is the Candidate in Favor of Letting Citizens Verify Their Own Elections?

For the past 6 years South Carolina citizens have been blocked from accessing Cast Vote Records (CVRs) which are a fundamental audit mechanism that allows the public to independently verify how ballots were tabulated. This access existed until 2020, when the former state elections director Marci Andino, who had collaborated with Mark Zuckerburg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) for the 2020 election, asked AG Alan Wilson to issue an opinion restricting it. Wilson deferred to Andino’s expertise for his initial opinion and has maintained that position even as public interest groups have pressed the issue in court and evidence points to the state’s position being erroneous.

At the same time, our state willingly hands ERIC, a nonprofit data-sharing consortium, the full Social Security Number and driver’s license number of every registered voter, sharing that data across all member states, which even initially the SC DMV was hesitant to share because they feared it might violate the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA). The privacy concerns cited to block federal voter roll verification were selectively applied as the same officials who called for “privacy” were sharing far more sensitive data with a private third party (who shares it with their third parties?).

In South Carolina, many voters cast ballots using ballot-marking devices that print both human-readable text and a barcode. The scanner reads the barcode, not the printed text, meaning a discrepancy between what the barcode encodes and what the voter actually selected could go undetected. Current post-election audits rescan the barcodes by machine, which only confirms the barcode was read consistently, not that it matched voter intent. The only process that could catch a discrepancy, human reviewers checking the printed text, happens on samples so small they are statistically meaningless.

One of the primary reasons cited by AG Wilson for not allowing voters to view voted ballots is the write-in portion, even though our election systems’ program contains a toggle button that redacts the name listed on the write-in ballot, simply recording it as a generic ‘Write-in Candidate’.

Questions to Ask:

  • Do you support restoring public FOIA access to Cast Vote Records so citizens can independently verify election results?
  • Do you support South Carolina withdrawing from ERIC, a mechanism that requires states to use resources to solicit voters from an “eligible-but-unregistered” pool?
  • Do you believe voters have a right to verify how their ballot was counted?
  • Do you support requiring post-election audits that include a statistically meaningful human review of the human-readable printed text on ballot-marking device records, rather than relying solely on machine rescans of the barcode?

Red Flags to Look For

Candidates who invoke “election security” to justify less transparency or who cannot explain why CVRs should be off-limits to the public while full SSNs flow freely to a multistate nonprofit that first received funding through the George Soros Open Society.

4) Ethics and Disclosure: Does the Candidate Have a Verifiable Record of Honesty?

Two ethics investigations were opened into SC Attorney General Alan Wilson within two months of each other in summer of 2025. The first alleged that $25,000 in campaign funds were used to finance a birthday party, then “washed” through a nonexistent organization. The second raised additional concerns about improper campaign account structures and the use of state-sponsored email for campaign RSVPs. These investigations were never voted on by the State Ethics Commission Board because too many members recused themselves due to a conflict of interest.

A whistleblower document raised concerns about Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office pressuring career procurement staff to approve sole source contracts for vendors with undisclosed ties to Adam Piper, a former senior aide and close political ally. Staff documented in writing that Piper was never disclosed his involvement with the vendors, was not registered as a lobbyist in South Carolina, and did not appear in procurement documents, despite playing a central role in at least one contract after award. Career staff who pushed back on sole source requests documented being told the Attorney General was unhappy with their refusal and was scolded for putting that refusal in writing because it was now subject to FOIA. The Senate Oversight Committee reviewed the allegations and found no violations of the South Carolina Ethics Act, though the committee’s findings did not address the factual details documented by procurement staff, including the undisclosed relationship between Piper and the vendors or his absence from required procurement disclosures, as well as alleged misappropriation of federal funds.

Another ethics investigation was opened into David Stumbo for allegedly receiving more than $36,000 in so-called reimbursements through a years-long series of monthly installments.

Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister amended his Statement of Economic Interest to include over half a million dollars in fees from the very office whose budget he controls, filing that amendment 11 and a half months late and four days after our reporting made the omission public.

South Carolina’s ethics disclosure system depends entirely on the honesty of the people it governs. Our FOIA investigations have repeatedly found that honesty is optional in practice: missing disclosures, amendments filed only after our reporting went public, and financial arrangements carefully structured to stay just inside the legal line while well outside any reasonable definition of transparency.

Questions to Ask:

  • What ethics complaints or investigations you have been subject to, including the circumstances and outcome?
  • Have any of your Statements of Economic Interest required post-filing amendments? Explain the circumstances.
  • Do you support strengthening South Carolina ethics laws by requiring mandatory recusal when a legislator’s firm has a financial relationship with an agency whose budget they control, and what specific reforms do you support?
  • Describe your approach to FOIA requests into your conduct in office. What will you do to ensure full compliance and transparency?

Red Flags to Look For

Watch for candidates who dismiss ethics complaints as “political attacks” without addressing the substance, who have amended disclosures only after press scrutiny forced their hand, who describe financial relationships with agencies they oversee as routine, or who treat FOIA requests as threats to be managed rather than transparency tools to be welcomed.

5) Government Transparency and FOIA: Will the Candidate Protect Citizens’ Right to Know?

Palmetto State Watch Foundation’s most impactful reporting has been made possible by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Our FOIA requests to the State Election Commission have produced thousands of pages on concerning correspondence behind the master lease deal and unusually high pay raises. Our FOIA requests to the AG’s office produced hundreds of pages of documents that revealed millions in undisclosed payments to lawyer-legislators. Our reporting on Silfab Solar, Scout Motors, and data center deals all depended on public records.

In early 2026, a bill was filed in the South Carolina legislature that would have threatened the effectiveness of watchdog organizations like ours, moving almost immediately after introduction. South Carolinians deserve a legislature that strengthens FOIA access, not one that quietly works to gut it.

In York County, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously ruled a site inappropriate for a hazardous industrial facility, yet county officials and the company continued pushing ahead with county council even granting tax incentives for Silfab in defiance of the ruling. Citizens waited up to six hours at public meetings to be heard. That is not a representative government.

Medium-sized counties such as Aiken county have repeatedly dodged requests to make public meetings available online. Small counties do this on a dime with a live feed set up through a Facebook channel, or inexpensive cameras and a YouTube account. Aiken County claims it would cost too much, citing an almost $100,000 line item in the budget for this feature. We understand that County Attorney Brad Farrar opposes these efforts and may have advised council members against meetings being online.

Questions to Ask:

  • Will you oppose any legislation or regulations that weakens FOIA law or raises costs for requestors?
  • Do you support requiring county and municipal governments to livestream and archive all public meetings?
  • What will you do to ensure citizens have a right to attend, speak at, and record their government in action without being threatened with removal for speaking up?

Red Flags to Look For

Candidates who have voted to limit public records access, who support NDAs in government incentive negotiations, or who have discouraged citizen participation at public meetings.

6) Community Over Corporate Interests: Who Does the Candidate Actually Represent?

In Spartanburg, a sitting state representative was told to “sit down and be quiet” or be escorted out by police when she raised questions about a secret data center deal at a county council meeting by the council’s only Democrat member. Residents who showed up in large numbers to oppose the Silfab Solar facility in Fort Mill were told, in effect, that their unanimous local zoning ruling didn’t matter. A whistleblower was fired after exposing that Silfab was operating without occupancy or operational permits.

Again and again, the people who show up to their government, who do the research, who wait in line for hours, who file the complaints and writer the letters, are brushed aside in favor of well-connected corporations and the insiders who benefit their deals.

Questions to Ask:

  • When constituents and the business community conflict, who do you represent?
  • Have you ever accepted campaign contributions from companies that have or are seeking state contracts, tax incentives, or regulatory approvals? Will you disclose them and what are the details?
  • Do you support meaningful community input requirements before large industrial projects are permitted near schools or homes, or will stress water sources and other utilities?
  • Will you commit to holding regular town halls, not just fundraisers in your district? Will you answer questions directly at town halls, not just pre-submitted questions?
  • Will you publish your personal cell phone number for your constituents to directly contact you and engage in meaningful conversation with them, as opposed to quipping preset talking points provided by lobbyists?
  • If you come across an issue you are unfamiliar with, will you take the time to research all sides of the issue and stand by your guns when you cast your vote, instead of voting in favor of issues you’re not fully informed on, you know to be wrong, or will create unintended consequences?

Red Flags to Look For

Candidates with significant corporate funding who offer platitudes about “job creation” without specifics, who have not held public town halls, or who have dismissed constituent concerns as “outside interference.”

7) Voting Record: For Incumbents or Previous Politicians, Actions Speak Louder Than Campaign Promises

Any incumbent running for re-election has a record and that record is public. Palmetto State Watch tracks specific legislation and votes so South Carolinians can see exactly what their representatives have done in Columbia. Campaign season promises are cheap. What a legislator actually voted for, against, or quietly let die in committee is the truth. What an elected official vetoed, signed, publicly supported or opposed speaks louder than words.

The 2025-2026 session alone has produced a number of votes that reveal where incumbents truly stand on taxes, medical freedom, abortion, government accountability, and your rights as a citizen. Here are some of the most recent to take a look at:

  • H.4216 — The Blue-Collar Tax Hike: Sold as historic tax relief, this bill was signed into law and will raise taxes on nearly 23% of South Carolina filers while cutting taxes most for the top 1%. Did your incumbent/candidate vote for it? Did they speak out against it or stay silent?
  • H.3368 — No Tax on Tips/Overtime/Senior Deduction: The Senate voted 16-27 to kill this bill, blocking conformity with the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) and denying SC workers the same tip and overtime tax relief their federal return provided. Fifteen Republicans joined all Democrats to kill it. Is your candidate on that list?
  • S.831 — SCDOT “Modernization” Bill: This bill allows any road in South Carolina to be monetized as a toll road with no legislative approval and little to no public warning, will increase state road debt, and smashes the IMTF “lock box” where the legislature promised to never divert the additional gas tax from road maintenance. Through the passage of this bill, South Carolina legislators tripled down on chronic problems of SCDOT: new construction with no end in sight and further neglecting road maintenance causing more damage to our roads. For a complete breakdown, check our former representative Jonathon Hill’s bad bill sheet.
    • The House voted 112-2 to pass S.831 and the Senate voted 43-0. Governor Henry McMaster signed it into law on May 18th, 2026.
  • H.5126 — State Budget: While the state budget has not passed yet, this year’s budget reintroduces $300 million in pork spending that had been cut out last year, as well as sizable increases in spending across the board.

Questions to Ask

  • For challengers with no legislative record: Ask them specifically how they would have voted on each of the bills above. A challenger who cannot answer these questions concretely has not done their homework…and that matters.
  • How will you ensure your votes reflect the interests of working South Carolinians rather than party leadership or special interest and what will you do when those two things conflict?
  • What is your process for independently evaluating legislation before casting a vote, and how will constituents know when you’ve broken from your party because a bill wasn’t in their best interest?
  • How will you communicate your votes, including the ones that are unpopular or complicated, to your constituents, and how will you be held accountable if your record doesn’t match your campaign promises?

Red Flags to Look For

Incumbents who cannot recall their votes, who repeat talking points without engaging the substance of questions, or who voted in favor of bills that raised fees and taxes on working families while blocking real tax relief and tip/overtime deductions, and in general grew the size of government and reliance on federal dollars. Also watch for incumbents who were absent or “excused” on critical votes…nonvotes can be just as telling as “no” votes.

Take Notes of Their Answers During Debates. Their Responses May Alarm You or Give You a Better Idea of What They Represent.

For Republican gubernatorial candidates, there were many telling answers to questions answered during the first debate. Regarding abortion and their stance on anti-abortion bill S.1095, only Ralph Norman stated that he would support it.

When asked about data centers, their answers became more tricky. Alarmingly, AG Alan Wilson stated that “forward-thinking” people would want them, and he would incentivize.

When asked about whether or not the gubernatorial candidates supported hate crimes legislation, Ralph Norman and Pamela Evette were the only two to come straight out and say they did not support hate crimes legislation. This was a different answer from Evette, as she has previously waffled on the issue.

The debates may have revealed more than just policy positions. Representative Joe White reported having witnessed knowing glances and even a fist bump between candidates Rom Reddy and Attorney General Alan Wilson at the debate on May 26.

Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot

Your Voter Checklist: Before June 9th

Take these steps before casting your ballot in any primary race:

South Carolina’s June 9th primary is not just another election. It is a choice between more of the same and something better. The backroom deals, the amended disclosures, the billion-dollar boondoggles, the votes cast in favor of party leadership instead of the people who sent them to Columbia, none of it happens without complicit legislators and an uninformed electorate. You now have the receipts. Use them. Ask the hard questions, demand real answers, and when a candidate deflects, dodges, or dismisses, let that be your answer. The most powerful thing a South Carolinian can do on June 9th is walk into their polling location knowing exactly who they are voting for, and exactly why.

Share your thoughts