South Carolina treasurer appears to survive attempt to kick him out of office
The Republican-dominated House has decided not to take up a resolution passed by the Senate to kick Loftis out of office because of his role in a phantom $1.8 billion account that showed up on the state's books but had barely any real money in it and the failure to report it to lawmakers for years.
The Senate sent the resolution to remove Loftis to the House on April 21. House Speaker Murrell Smith said there just isn't enough time to take it up before the session ends May 8.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
'We're going to concentrate on passing legislation now and we'll make a decision after session concludes on the path forward with the treasurer,' Smith told South Carolina Public Radio.
The decision leaves Loftis open to run for a fifth four-year term in 2026. One of his arguments to stay in office was it wasn't fair to overturn the results of an election.
'I am grateful for the House leadership's decision today to choose the people's business over political theatre. I feel sure that South Carolinians are thankful that they are the first priority, and political games are not. I am ready to turn my focus back to doing the people's work,' Loftis wrote in a statement.
The Senate voted 33-8 to remove Loftis after an extraordinary hearing with 23 Republicans voting yes. It was the culmination of over two years of investigation by senators that began when state accountants unintentionally exaggerated money given to colleges and universities by $3.5 billion.
That led to the discovery of an account error that started a decade ago when the state was changing from one accounting system to another. If accountants couldn't balance the entries in the two sets of books as they moved thousands of accounts with different definitions, they kept adding it to a special account year after year until it grew to $1.8 billion.
It took forensic accountants, who were paid millions of dollars in fees, to finally unravel that nearly all of the money was not real cash but just an accumulation of errors.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Loftis has called the Senate investigation a witch hunt. He repeatedly said no money went missing and the errors were not made in his office, although others have testified differently. The treasurer said continuing to focus on the mistakes threatens the state's strong credit rating.
Just because eight Republican senators voted against the resolution doesn't mean they back Loftis. Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey said he simply thought his fellow senators did not make a strong enough case to remove him from office.
'I'd vote for a monkey over Curtis Loftis. I think he has no business being treasurer and my hope is Republicans will put up a good candidate to run against him,' Massey said.
This is the first year of a two year session, so the resolution to dump Loftis, which is currently in a House committee, will stay alive when lawmakers return to Columbia in 2026.
Filing for office starts next March with the Republican primary for treasurer, governor and other statewide offices happening in June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
17 minutes ago
Remember Cambridge Analytica? What to know about the $8B US lawsuit against Meta's board
More than seven years after a privacy scandal involving Facebook and the Cambridge Analytica consulting firm emerged, an $8-billion US class action investors' lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg and other Meta board members will begin. The plaintiffs, led by Amalgamated Bank Inc., will argue in court in Wilmington, Del., that the harvesting of data of Facebook users in the Cambridge case was in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It's an investors' lawsuit that Meta battled all the way to the Supreme Court. The nine justices even heard arguments last November, before doing an about-turn just a couple weeks later, unanimously allowing the case to go forward (new window) . Here's a look at how the case proceeded, and what to expect: Cambridge Analytica, revisited In 2018, revelations that data from tens of millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica emerged, in part due to a Canadian whistleblower. The now-defunct political consulting firm did work for Republican candidate Ted Cruz, who nonetheless lost to Donald Trump, and then the firm worked for Trump during his successful 2016 presidential campaign. Cambridge Analytica's investors included Trump ally Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, a reclusive billionaire (new window) who agreed to support Trump's campaign after first backing Cruz. Enlarge image (new window) Christopher Wylie, the Canadian whistleblower who formerly worked with Cambridge Analytica, is shown during an interview with CNBC on Oct. 9, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Brendan McDermid Cambridge Analytica harvested data on users who answered a Facebook quiz app, This Is Your Digital Life, as well as friends of those users. Zuckerberg admitted it was a major breach of trust on Facebook's part. We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you, he said in an early 2018 statement. Scandal has been costly for Facebook The FTC fined Facebook $5 billion (new window) in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data. That same year, Facebook reached a $100 million settlement (new window) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading investors. In 2022, Facebook settled a U.S. class-action lawsuit (new window) with users for $725 million, without admitting wrongdoing. On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019. Who's going to testify? The trial will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, and former board members Peter Thiel, the Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix. Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to be one of the first witnesses to take the stand in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court. A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment to Reuters. Jeffrey Zients, right, is shown with then-president Joe Biden on Feb. 1, 2023 in Washington, D.C., Zients, previously a member of Facebook's board, is among those expected to testify. / Kevin Dietsch What do shareholders want? Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion. In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as extreme and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica's deceit. Max Huffman, plaintiff attorney, walks into the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center where Mark Zuckerberg and other top officials from Meta Platforms will take the stand to defend against allegations by investors that they should be held liable for billions of dollars in fines for privacy violations by Facebook, in Wilmington, Del., on Wednesday. Photo: Reuters / Rachel Wisniewski In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company's stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1 billion. Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading. The plaintiff attorneys also contend that Sandberg and Zients used personal email accounts to communicate about key issues relating to the suit, and didn't turn off the auto-delete function, despite being told to preserve their records (new window) . McCormick is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes. What has happened elsewhere? Given Facebook's global reach, the scandal spawned various types of litigation around the world. Canadian class-action lawsuits stemming from the Cambridge Analytica breach were rejected (new window) in a number of provincial jurisdictions (new window) . In addition, a Federal Court judge in 2023 dismissed the federal privacy watchdog's bid for a declaration that Facebook broke the the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PIPEDA. The judge agreed with Facebook's argument that once a user authorizes it to disclose information to an app, the social media company's safeguarding duties under PIPEDA come to an end. In the U.K., Facebook was fined the maximum £500,000 ($921,000 Cdn) for breaches of its data protection laws. Meta late last year settled (new window) for $50 million Australian ($44 million Cdn) on a no admission basis, after the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner alleged the country's privacy laws were breached. What was Cambridge Analytica's political impact? While the Democrats pounced on the revelations in 2018, its political impact was downplayed by many experts. A Nature magazine investigation (new window) assessed that evidence of Cambridge Analytica's independent impact on voter behaviour is basically nonexistent and that there is also no evidence that Cambridge Analytica in fact deployed psychographic models while working for the Trump campaign. An expert from Tufts University in Massachusetts, in U.S. Senate testimony (new window) , said that it was likely many Facebook users were mistargeted, likening the approach to broad-based robocalls. No evidence has been produced publicly about the firm's profiling or targeting to suggest that its efforts were effective, said Eitan Hersh of Tufts, author of the book Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. Bringing up the Cruz loss to Trump, the British blog Little Atoms was more trenchant, stating that Cambridge Analytica's flashy data science team got beaten by a dude with a thousand-dollar website. With files from Reuters, the Canadian Press and the Associated Press
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Indigenous Wampis are ambushed in Peru after government backs out of anti-mining joint patrol
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — An attack by armed assailants on a patrol of a mission by the Indigenous Wampis guards last week in the Peruvian Amazon has again brought into focus the issue of illegal gold mining in the ancestral territory. The 60-member mission was ambushed and shot at as they were patrolling near the Wampis community of Fortaleza on Saturday, just days after the Peruvian government's sudden withdrawal from a planned joint enforcement operation to confront the illegal mining. No one was hurt in the attack. For two years, the Wampis Nation has pressed state agencies and the public prosecutor's office in Peru to work together to monitor for and remove illegal mining operations from the Santiago River basin. Days before a scheduled joint operation, government agencies pulled out without explanation, according to Amazon Watch, a U.S.-based environmental and Indigenous rights nonprofit. In response, the Wampis launched their own mission and its first patrol was attacked on Saturday. Indigenous leaders say the incident highlights the growing risks faced by land defenders and the government's failure to uphold its promises. A Wampis official described the attack to The Associated Press. The around 60 Indigenous leaders, community guards and technicians were tasked with monitoring the environmental impacts of illegal gold mining in the Bajo Rio Santiago region. 'People started throwing explosives — I don't even know what kind they were — and then came the gunfire,' said Evaristo Pujupat Shirap, 45, communications officer for the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Wampis Nation. 'Bullets hit the vehicle and even pierced a teacher's jacket at chest level,' Shirap added. The Peruvian government did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Members on the Wampis mission were armed with hunting rifles, but according to Shirap, leaders had instructed the group not to fire under any circumstances. While they did fire a few warning shots into the air, no direct confrontation took place, Shirap added. 'We will not stand by while our rivers are poisoned and our forests destroyed,' said Galois Yampis, vice president of the Wampis government. Peru's 'government failed to honor its commitments, so we are acting to defend our territory and the future of our people,' he added. The Indigenous Wampis territorial guards are community-led environmental defenders trained and organized by the autonomous territorial government of the Wampis Nation. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Their aim is to protect Wampis ancestral lands from illegal activities such as mining, logging, and drug trafficking, while upholding their cultural values and vision of Tarimat Pujut — a life in harmony with nature. Raphael Hoetmer, Amazon program director at Amazon Watch, a longtime ally of the Wampis, said they only confront violent criminals — 'yet are left to face danger without state protection.' The Wampis Nation has long been urging Peru and gold-importing nations to strengthen enforcement against illegal gold trade and invest in Indigenous-led territorial monitoring and sustainable development. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
California Republican lawmakers launch campaign to require voter ID
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two California Republican state lawmakers launched a campaign Wednesday to place a measure on the 2026 ballot that would require voter identification and proof of citizenship at the polls. The proposal would require the state to verify proof of citizenship when a person registers to vote, and voters would have to provide identifications at the polls. Those who vote through mail-in ballots would have to give the last four digits of a government-issued ID such as a Social Security number.
