Showing posts with label donors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label donors. Show all posts

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Donors profit from Myrtle Beach sales tax

"Any time you're spending taxpayers' money, there should be some checks and balances," said state Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet.

Although public money makes up 70 percent of the chamber's revenue - a projected $18.7 million for 2011 - state law does not require the chamber to solicit competitive bids or follow any other procurement rules for projects that are paid with taxpayer dollars.

The chamber is required to submit regular reports to governing bodies and the public showing how much tourism grant, accommodations tax and sales tax money it spends and where it spends it, but those reports have no impact on the vendors chosen to do that work.

Chamber President Brad Dean did not return telephone calls last week.

Michael Sponhour, spokesman for the state's Budget and Control Board, said any regulation of how the chamber spends sales tax revenue would have to come from the city of Myrtle Beach.

Myrtle Beach, which passes the sales tax money along to the chamber, does not require the chamber to follow any procurement rules, according to city spokesman Mark Kruea.

"The chamber is interested in getting the biggest bang for its buck, so I'm sure they are being responsible with that money," Kruea said.

FBI investigation

The chamber paid two direct mail marketers, Fort Mill-based Miller Direct Media and Jordan Investment Corp. of Conway, nearly $1 million from public funds including the sales tax during the first nine months of this year, according to quarterly spending reports issued by the chamber.

The payments to Miller Direct and Jordan Investment follow $36,000 in campaign donations those two companies made last year to politicians who approved the tax.

Those campaign donations and others funneled through Dean and other chamber officials in the wake of the tax increase now are the focus of investigations by the FBI and IRS.

Scott Brandon, chief executive of the Brandon Agency advertising firm, said FBI and IRS agents have questioned him about his company's business relationship with the chamber.

"It's clear to me they were looking at whether my contributions to any of the PACs had any influence in me getting more business from the chamber," Brandon said.

The Brandon Agency gave $3,500 to the Grand Strand Statewide PAC in 2008 and Brandon gave a combined $75 last year to three other PACs that supported the sales tax.

The Brandon Agency has received $669,982 in public money during the first nine months of this year for marketing projects such as purchasing advertisements in magazines, according to chamber reports.

Most of that money is passed through to magazines and other media where the ads appear, but Brandon said his company keeps 10 percent to 15 percent in commissions and fees.

Brandon said he has done work for the chamber for at least a decade and that the amount of money his company received this year is less than what he has received in some previous years.

"Some people believe that these guys [the chamber] were conspiring to influence the election by giving campaign money and, in return, promising business favors," Brandon said. "That's not true."

Some area residents and business owners have criticized the donations, calling them payback for a tax increase that directly benefits private companies that get the marketing jobs and tourism-related businesses - such as Myrtle Beach hotels and attractions - that no longer have to spend their own money to advertise.

Campaign cash

In several instances, the chamber is choosing to give its business to those companies that either made campaign donations or contributed money to a chamber-related political action committee called the Grand Strand Statewide PAC.

Miller Direct and its subsidiary, Visit Media, contributed a combined $21,500 to local and state politicians in the months after the tax increase was approved.

Miller Direct and Visit Media also contributed a combined $5,500 last year to the Grand Strand Statewide PAC. Miller Direct contributed another $3,500 to the chamber-related PAC this year.

Miller Direct has received $647,340 in public money from the chamber for work during the first nine months of this year, according to chamber reports.

It is not clear how much work Miller Direct or other companies did for the chamber prior to the sales tax because the chamber previously did not disclose how it spent marketing money.

However, the chamber's marketing budget has grown exponentially since the sales tax - Dean has pegged the year-over-year increase at $15 million - making more money available for companies such as Miller Direct.

Steve Miller, chief executive of Miller Direct, did not respond to a request for comments.

Jordan Investment Corp. gave $9,000 last year to the tax-raising politicians, according to S.C. Ethics Commission reports.

Since then, Jordan Investment has been paid $314,716 in public money by the chamber.

Stephen Jordan, owner of Jordan Investment, did not respond to a request for comments.

Another company - New York-based Corinthian Media, which purchases television ads for the chamber - has been paid more than $3.7 million in public money during the first nine months of this year. Like the Brandon Agency, Corinthian passes much of that along to media after taking a cut for commissions and fees.

Corinthian Media donated $3,500 to the Grand Strand Statewide PAC in 2008 and another $3,500 this year.

Larry Miller, the chief executive of Corinthian Media, did not respond to a request for comments.

In another case, the chamber has given $544,517 in public money to a start-up company called Visibility & Conversions LLC.

Visibility & Conversions was formed on Jan. 6, according to S.C. Secretary of State records. The company donated $3,500 to the chamber-related PAC on Jan. 29, according to the ethics commission.

The chamber's spending reports show the company started getting public money during the first quarter of this year.

Visibility & Conversions, an Internet advertising group, is owned by Bill Rosenthal. Another Rosenthal company - Beach Package Promotions - gave $3,500 to the chamber-related PAC in June.

Rosenthal did not respond to a request for comments.

The $5.9 million in public money given to companies that contributed to politicians or the PAC represents about one-third of the $18.1 million the chamber spent on marketing efforts during the first nine months of this year, according to the chamber's reports.

Calls for oversight

The amount of public money the chamber receives each year is comparable to the budget for a small municipality. For example, the chamber's projected public money stream for next year is more than twice the budget of Surfside Beach.

During the first nine months of this year, the chamber has received $17.2 million in public funds. Nearly three-fourths of that amount - $12.3 million - has come from the sales tax. The rest comes from accommodations tax revenue and state grants.

The lack of public oversight of how the chamber spends all that money has some legislators considering an amendment to the state law that created the tourism-related sales tax.

Cleary said he would like to study how other states handle similar local-option sales tax expenditures.

"We need to look at oversight in other states and do something that's workable," Cleary said, adding that an appointed oversight committee that reviews the chamber's spending could be a solution.

State Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Conway, said he is not aware of any problems with the way public money is being spent but would support measures to amend the law for more accountability.

"If there's some sense of unfairness or if somebody is trying to do business with the chamber but is being shut out, I would not be opposed to any improvements [to the law]," Rankin said. "You always want to get the biggest bang for the buck.

"But I wouldn't want to do anything that would create a bureaucratic, slow procurement process that would make them jump through hoops before making a decision," he said.

Cleary is among the state legislators who received campaign contributions from companies now doing business with the chamber. Rankin did not receive any contributions from those businesses.

Some legislators, however, say there is no need for more oversight because they trust the chamber to spend money properly.

State Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort County, said the Myrtle Beach chamber is doing "a fantastic job" of luring tourists away from competing destinations in Florida and other states.

Herbkersman said he trusts the chamber, but "if I had an issue with the chamber, I would want there to be more oversight," he said.

Herbkersman introduced a bill last year that would have amended the state law to allow Beaufort County to impose a 1 percent sales tax for tourism promotion, with the money likely going to the Hilton Head Island Chamber of Commerce. That bill was approved by the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate.

Herbkersman said he is not sure whether he will reintroduce the bill during the coming legislative session.

Myrtle Beach Mayor John Rhodes said the chamber's quarterly reports and regular updates to council provide enough accountability.

"It's all there - what they are spending and what they are spending it for," Rhodes said. "There are always going to be questions with anything that has to do with public money, but I think it's fine the way it is."

John Crangle, director of Columbia-based Common Cause of South Carolina, said giving public money to the chamber without oversight "is an open invitation to abuse."

Crangle, whose group advocates for open government, said he questions whether the sales tax legislation is constitutional because it designates a government function - spending tax dollars - to a private entity.

"I don't think that there's any question there needs to be more oversight of how that money is spent," Crangle said. "This is the kind of thing that cries out for reform."

Lobbyists and corporations

The Grand Strand Statewide PAC is operated by a political lobbying group called the Grand Strand Business Association.

The chamber contributes $3,500 per year to the PAC and gives the business association money to pay for state and federal lobbyists. Those lobbyists cost the chamber a combined $253,299 in 2009, according to the association's tax return.

The chamber also provided an office and administrative support for the business association until this year.

One of the lobbyists the chamber provides funding for is Mark Kelley, a Myrtle Beach business owner and former state legislator.

Kelley and Dean delivered some of the campaign donations to politicians in the months after the sales tax was approved.

There are strict rules that forbid lobbyists from facilitating campaign donations for statewide candidates; however, a spokeswoman for the S.C. Ethics Commission has said it does not appear any laws were violated in Kelley's case.

"Just being in the same room is not a violation, it happens all the time," Cathy Hazelwood, the commission's general counsel, told The Sun News. "He [Kelley] is not supposed to touch the envelope or hand over the envelope."

Myrtle Beach lawyer Shep Guyton was president of the business association until late last year when Mike Wooten, president of Myrtle Beach-based DDC Engineers Inc., took that role.

Guyton, a former chairman of the chamber's board of directors, now is vice-chairman of the business association.

Part of the FBI and IRS investigation focuses on $239,500 in post-sales-tax-increase political donations made by 14 corporations for which Guyton was a partner, the registered agent or both.

All of the Guyton-related donations were made with cashier's checks purchased on the same day and in sequential order at South Atlantic Bank, where Guyton was a board member.

Guyton resigned from the bank's board of directors earlier this year.

The Guyton-related donations have drawn scrutiny because some of his partners in the corporations have said the businesses did not have any money to give to politicians. Another corporation was dissolved nearly two years before it purportedly made the donations.

Also, at least four of the corporations have land that is in foreclosure, and chamber critics question why Guyton was giving money to politicians instead of paying corporate debts.

Those critics also question how Guyton got the money to purchase the cashier's checks.

Dean has said none of the money that passed through Guyton's corporations came from the chamber.

All told, the chamber acted as a clearinghouse for $324,500 in campaign donations after the sales tax was approved.

Those donations were given to four City Council incumbents, seven state legislators and gubernatorial candidate Gresham Barrett, who lost to governor-elect Nikki Haley in the Republic primary. Barrett was the only politician who did not play a role in the sales tax increase.

The sales tax was approved on May 26, 2009, and the Guyton-related corporations purchased their cashier's checks on June 8, 2009. The politicians who approved the sales tax increase received those checks and other donations over the next few months and the tax started on Aug. 1, 2009.

Most of the sales tax money - charged on retail sales within the Myrtle Beach city limits - goes to the chamber of commerce for advertising to out-of-state residents. The city gets about 20 percent of the funds for property tax breaks and tourism infrastructure projects.

The tax is expected to generate up to $18 million per year over the 10-year life of the legislation.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.


View the original article here

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Myrtle Beach area campaign donors face foreclosures

A foreclosure lawsuit has been filed against two more of the corporations that made campaign contributions last year that have been tied to the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce.

Bank of North Carolina filed the lawsuit last week against WKG Land Partners LLC and Back Gate Partners LLC. The bank claims those corporations have defaulted on a $500,000 loan. No court date has been set.

Shep Guyton, a Myrtle Beach lawyer who is the registered agent for both corporations, did not return a telephone call to The Sun News.

Guyton is the registered agent for 14 corporations that made $239,500 in campaign contributions that now are the focus of criminal investigations by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service.

The investigations focus on possible money laundering, tax fraud and criminal conspiracy, according to state Rep. Tracy Edge, R-North Myrtle Beach, who has been interviewed by the agencies.

Edge is the only lawmaker who did not accept the campaign contributions.

The campaign donations - all in the form of sequentially numbered cashier's checks purchased on the same day at South Atlantic Bank - were given to politicians who supported a 1 percent tax increase in Myrtle Beach. Money from that tax goes to the chamber of commerce for its tourism marketing efforts.

Guyton is a former president of the chamber's board of directors. Guyton also was a member of South Atlantic Bank's board of directors until his resignation earlier this year.

Donations also were made to failed gubernatorial candidate Gresham Barrett, who did not play a role in the tax increase but was supported by chamber board members. Barrett accepted the money last year during a luncheon with chamber President Brad Dean and Mark Kelly, the chamber's lobbyist.

This is at least the fourth Guyton-related corporation facing foreclosure in the months after they made campaign contributions.

The foreclosure lawsuits have some critics of the tax increase questioning how corporations that could not pay their bills managed to funnel thousands of dollars in contributions to politicians.

Dean has said the money did not come from the chamber of commerce.

Brant Branham, the chamber's board chairman when the donations were made, has said he raised the money independently from "like-minded businessmen and women."

WKG Land Partners made contributions of $3,500 apiece to political action committees that helped re-elect Myrtle Beach City Council members.

Back Gate made 10 contributions totaling $12,500 to council candidates, state legislators and Barrett.

Bank of North Carolina said in its lawsuit that those corporations failed to repay a $500,000 loan that came due in 2008. The bank, which is the successor to Beach First National Bank, said the corporations now owe $570,245 with interest accruing at $65.02 per day.

Those corporations pledged property they own in Cypress River Plantation, located in the Burgess community, and in a shopping center at the back gate of the former Myrtle Beach Air Force Base as collateral for the loan.

In addition, Guyton and business partners Edward Williams and Dean Karavan signed personal guaranties for the loan.

Williams and Karavan could not be reached for comment.

Officials with the U.S. attorney's office and the S.C. Ethics Commission said Tuesday they cannot confirm or deny that an investigation is taking place. They declined to comment further on the matter.

At least two other Guyton-related corporations are facing foreclosure in separate lawsuits filed earlier this year.

Deluxe Land Partners - which made $20,500 in donations to political candidates - failed to repay a $350,000 loan, according to Bank of North Carolina.

Garden City Partners - which made $20,500 in campaign contributions - failed to repay a $1.2 million loan, according to S.C. Bank & Trust.

In addition to the foreclosures, a partner in another corporation tied to Guyton told The Sun News that the corporation had no money to make political donations. That corporation's only asset is a piece of land.

Another corporation for which Guyton was the registered agent was dissolved nearly two years before it made donations to political candidates.

Money from the Guyton-related corporations is among $324,500 in campaign donations given to Barrett, four City Council incumbents and seven state legislators in the months after the council members and legislators passed a law that allowed a 1 percent sales tax increase in Myrtle Beach.

Most of that money goes to the chamber of commerce for advertising. The city gets about 20 percent of the funds for property tax breaks and tourism infrastructure projects.

The tax is expected to generate up to $18 million per year over the 10-year life of the legislation.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Monday, October 25, 2010

Influenced by national groups outside donors Arizona elections

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 8867.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9029.

by Ronald J. Hansen - Oct. 24, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Among the propositions on Arizona's ballot this year is a constitutional amendment to give the Legislature exclusive authority to enact laws regulating hunting and fishing. The oversight could trump even voter initiatives.

Backing Proposition 109 is the Virginia-based National Rifle Association, which has sent donations totaling nearly $190,000 to a campaign to pass the hunting measure. Not to be outdone, the Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington, D.C., has contributed $250,000 to the campaign that opposes the measure.

Combined, the groups have kicked in nearly all of the large donations in the pro and opposition campaigns. Large donations are those of at least $10,000, and they must be reported to the state within 24 hours.

National groups and out-of-state donors are playing a major role this year in trying to woo voters in the campaigns for or against four of Arizona's 10 propositions on the Nov. 2 ballot, according to an Arizona Republic analysis of state campaign-finance records. With those propositions, anywhere from two-thirds to all of the large donations come from advocacy groups based outside the state.

The heavy presence of national groups and outside donors trying to influence state elections has become a regular, if little watched, feature of the political landscape in Arizona and elsewhere in recent decades.

In the case of the NRA, for instance, "they are a typical story of how national groups sometimes look around the states and try to find a way to make progress on their issue," said Mark Alexander, a law professor and campaign-finance expert at Seton Hall University. "You get a toehold in one place and try and build on that."

Political experts say the trend is growing, with both individuals and companies increasingly doling out money to try to shift public policy. Businesses, which have been able to contribute toward Arizona ballot measures for decades, also now can donate directly to candidates in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's January ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

It is difficult to quantify the trend of out-of-state giving to ballot measures because of differences in states' campaign-finance reports and factors that affect donor interest, such as midterm vs. presidential election years. It's also hard to determine if outside money succeeds often in swinging an election.

Regardless, in Arizona this year, outsiders are anteing up large sums on selected issues:

-?Nearly all the major donations to efforts tied to Proposition 113, which would tighten rules on union organizing in Arizona, have come from a Nevada-based organization, Save Our Secret Ballot, according to records with the secretary of state. S.O.S. Ballot, a type of non-profit that engages in political campaigning, says its overall purpose is to protect the right to a secret ballot in government-required elections.

-?Nearly two-thirds of the major cash paying for campaigns tied to a medicinal marijuana measure in Arizona, Proposition 203, is from out of state. The biggest outside donor is the Marijuana Policy Project, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C.

-?Outsiders account for all of the big donations on both sides of Proposition 107, a state constitutional amendment that could ban affirmative action in Arizona. The largest out-of-state donor was the California-based American Civil Rights Coalition, co-founded by activist Ward Connerly.

-?All but $30,000 of the nearly $440,000 in major gifts to help pass or defeat the fishing and hunting measure has come from outside groups.

Era of outsiders

Anthony Corrado, a government professor and campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, said that in the 1980s, national groups began to see ballot measures as a less expensive way to bring about influential changes.

Since then, outside groups have pushed for passage or defeat of countless measures around the country, including bans on same-sex marriage, allowing casino gambling and medicinal marijuana, and limiting abortion rights. But they also include smaller issues affecting business, regulation, taxation and other technical matters. Historically, many of those issues had gone to legislators instead.

"These tend to be the type of issues that don't draw a lot of attention, so a small amount of money can maybe make a difference," Corrado said.

With many measures, national groups are trying to immunize states from possible changes made by courts, legislatures or even Congress. In other cases, groups may try to undo changes already imposed.

The hunting and fishing proposition in Arizona may be a mix of both.

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, said Arizona is one of four states this year where the group is urging passage of measures establishing hunting and fishing rights. The effort is aimed at preventing measures like the one passed in Michigan in 2006 that kept mourning doves off-limits to hunters, he said.

"Rather than wait for a problem to develop," he said, "we started a proactive measure a number of years ago. We are responding to a need" to protect overall hunting rights.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said his organization succeeded with four Arizona ballot measures since 1994, including bans on cockfighting and steel-jaw trapping. He believes if Proposition 109 passes, it will allow the Legislature to overturn bans already approved by voters.

NRA leaders "see that the people of Arizona favor the humane treatment of animals," Pacelle said. "They don't trust the voters to protect some of the things the NRA cares about."

Both groups cite their national memberships, 4 million in the NRA and 11 million in the HSUS, as reasons to get involved on the ballot.

Good or bad?

This year, businesses and outside organizations are investing in other state elections, as well.

Animal-rights groups, including the HSUS, are major donors in a Missouri ballot measure that would tighten restrictions on dog breeding to require better care and limit puppy mills. People and groups outside Missouri account for 91 percent of the $3 million raised by a committee urging passage, records show.

In California, oil refiners in Texas, Kansas and Ohio are largely responsible for funding support of Proposition 23, which would suspend the state's efforts to reduce global warming during times of high unemployment. Overall, nearly 70 percent of the money supporting the proposition comes from outside California.

Two years ago, Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, passed with considerable financial help from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many from Utah. The same year, a unit of Colorado-based Focus on the Family led the financial fight to ban gay marriage in Arizona, committing $215,000 to that campaign, which passed easily.

As is often the case, Alexander and Corrado said it's hard to know how decisive any help in a ballot measure is.

In 1996 and 1998, three wealthy men - including two outsiders - who favored relaxing drug laws spent heavily to influence the votes on Arizona propositions. University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, New York investor George Soros and Cleveland insurance executive Peter Lewis combined to spend more than $1 million each year in support of voting to legalize medical marijuana and lighten drug penalties.

The results fell their way. After the 1996 vote, the Legislature repealed the marijuana provision, and after the 1998 vote, federal officials threatened to prosecute any doctor who prescribed the drug.

But even well-funded efforts can fail, sometimes because outside interests are vilified and in other cases because the public simply rejects the change.

In Arizona, local and national members of the payday-loan industry spent $14 million in 2008 to preserve their businesses here. Despite nearly 30 times more money than an opposition group, the measure failed handily at the ballot box.

Still, "spending money does have an influence on the ability to get a message out," Alexander said. "And if you get a message out, you have a better chance of winning."

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here