Share
Whether S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford will be impeached is a political question. Whether he should be is not a question at all.
If there were any doubts about Sanford's ethics and hypocrisy after he deserted the state for five days last summer and left no one in charge, those doubts were erased Monday with a report from the S.C. Ethics Commission.
The panel charged Sanford with 37 instances of violating state law. These are allegations, not conclusions, and we'll have to wait before the two sides have their full say. But even if Sanford's lawyers manage to get him exonerated of some of the charges, this is clear: South Carolina has been fleeced by a double-talking governor who has repeatedly used state and campaign resources for his personal benefit.
The S.C. Constitution is notably vague on what behavior warrants impeachment. Article XV says: "The House of Representatives alone shall have the power of impeachment in cases of serious crimes or serious misconduct in office by officials elected on a statewide basis..." Experts say the language was a deliberate move away from the more restrictive federal standard of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
That means impeachment does not require criminal behavior. So is Sanford guilty of "serious misconduct in office"? Let's see:
He vanished from the state for five days last summer. He lied to state employees and citizens about where he was. He did nothing to put someone in charge in his absence. He left the state with no leader and no way to find him in case of an emergency.
He flew first class or business class on state business 18 times, the ethics commission says. State law requires officials to choose the most economical fare unless there is an urgent reason to do otherwise.
He used state aircraft for personal travel nine times, the ethics commission says.
He used campaign money for personal expenses 10 times, the ethics commission says.
This from a man who sold himself to voters as a thrifty guardian of taxpayer dollars. He fought to keep federal stimulus money out of South Carolina even as it suffered from one of the nation's highest unemployment rates. He protested spending in 2004 by taking a pair of piglets named "Pork" and "Barrel" to the legislature. (And the married man who found his "soul mate" in Argentina said earlier that President Bill Clinton should resign for the Lewinsky affair.)
So we know he's guilty of hypocrisy. He's guilty of worse than that as well. S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster and others will determine whether any of Sanford's transgressions were criminal. Even if they weren't, Sanford's behavior easily meets the constitutional requirement of "serious misconduct." That was true even before Monday's Ethics Commission report, because Sanford showed a serious dereliction of duty when he disappeared in June.
If the legislature does not punish Sanford, what message does that send to South Carolinians? The House should impeach Sanford so the Senate can judge whether he should be removed from office. Better yet, he could save us all the spectacle and resign.
