
South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — All money paid to South Carolina lawmakers while they aren't in session has been stopped by the state Supreme Court as the justices sort through a lawsuit from one of their members, alleging legislators improperly gave themselves an $18,000-a-year raise.
The raise is what is called 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent and requires no receipts or other documentation.
Lawmakers voted, in the budget set to start July 1, to increase it from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members.
Republican Sen. Wes Climer sued his colleagues, saying the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their terms. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection.
Lawyers for the House and Senate disagree. They said the money isn't a 'per diem' considered part of legislators' salaries, but a reimbursement for expenses, even though there are no reporting requirements.
They also said the money isn't an extra cost to taxpayers because it came out of funds already set aside to operate both chambers.
The compensation is usually paid monthly, but neither the $1,000 that has been paid for decades nor the $1,500 raise will land in lawmakers' direct deposits in July since the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday to suspend the budget item containing the money until it rules.
The justices set out a schedule with a deadline in early September for the final legal filings, meaning lawmakers won't get paid for at least two months.
If the justices rule the raise is legal, then lawmakers would get back pay for both the raise and their regular pay.
In South Carolina, the Supreme Court justices are elected by the Legislature.
Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 annually, paid in a lump sum that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to the state capital in Columbia and hotel rooms while in session.
Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May, and outside of the in-district compensation, they don't receive any money when not in session.
The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. It is meant to pay for computers or other equipment, travel to events in their districts, or holding town halls.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PCAOB imposes smaller exam cheating fines, citing cooperation
This story was originally published on CFO Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily CFO Dive newsletter. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board announced three separate settled disciplinary orders against Netherlands member firms of Deloitte, Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers, sanctioning them with penalties totaling $8.5 million for violating the board's rules and quality control standards related to their internal training programs, according to a Wednesday press release. From 2018 to 2022 hundreds of the firms' professionals, including partners, improperly shared answers to tests for mandatory firm training courses on such topics as professional independence, audit requirements and professional integrity, the PCAOB release states. Without admitting or denying the findings, Deloitte Netherlands and PwC Netherlands each agreed to pay a $3 million civil penalty and EY Netherlands agreed to pay $2.5 million. The fines would have been 'significantly larger' if the firms had not been as cooperative, according to the release. The U.S. audit watchdog's latest exam-cheating sanctions come as the board's broader future is uncertain: Republican lawmakers have proposed to eliminate the Enron-era body and fold its duties into the Securities and Exchange Commission. The PCAOB was handed a legislative lifeline last week when the Senate Parliamentarian found that the provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill wasn't compliant with the so-called Byrd rule. Still, the Trump administration's push for deregulation could drive other means of curbing the board's powers, CFO Dive previously reported. The fines are smaller than the record $25 million penalty imposed last year by the board when it sanctioned KPMG Netherlands and its former head of assurance in connection with cheating and sharing of answers on the firm's internal training exams during a five-year period. At the time, the PCAOB noted that the widespread cheating on the training courses was enabled by the firm, which took 'virtually no steps to investigate' the misconduct which was ultimately brought forward by a whistleblower. With the clock potentially ticking with regard to the board, Robert Pawlewicz Ph.D., an assistant professor of accounting at the University of Richmond's Robins School of Business, said the PCAOB may be willing to settle for less to have these violations closed and made public before the SEC makes any changes. It's possible 'the PCAOB was incentivized to wrap up the enforcements,' he said. He also said that the board, acting alongside the newly appointed SEC administration, isn't likely to pursue such actions that aren't audit-related which can be criticized by some as regulatory overreach, although Pawlewicz doesn't agree with that view. 'With a new Board, I would not expect to hear about more of these violations,' Pawlewicz said in an email. A PCAOB spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. In a statement emailed to CFO Dive, EY Netherlands said integrity is a core value and that it takes such matters seriously, noting that it has fully cooperated with PCAOB. 'We have taken extensive actions to reinforce our culture of compliance, ethics, and integrity, as well as further measures to address the issues identified through our investigation. With this settlement, we can bring these matters with the PCAOB to a conclusion and will work with local regulator AFM [Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets] to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the measures we have taken,' the statement from EY said. In a press release PwC Netherlands said it has taken steps to remediate the problem and that the settlement coincides with its internal investigation. 'This behaviour is contrary to our values, and we have imposed a range of sanctions on those found to be involved, including written warnings, financial penalties, demotions and exits from the firm,' the release states. Deloitte did not respond immediately to a request for comment. Recommended Reading PCAOB wins Senate lifeline while future remains murky Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Judge's middle finger to the Supreme Court shows why Trump wants to move fast on deportations
A sleazy bid by a federal judge to defy the Supreme Court's decision on Team Trump deportations shows exactly why the ruling was necessary in the first place. On Monday, the justices stayed a preliminary injunction by District Judge Brian Murphy (a Biden appointee) that had blocked the Trump folks from deporting migrants to countries they didn't come from without sufficient time to appeal. That should've been an immediate green light for the feds to deport eight criminal migrants to South Sudan, even though seven of the men originate from other countries. Yet Murphy flipped the high court a bird, claiming he'd issued a separate order for the men to be held, so the justices' ruling didn't apply and Trump & Co. had to keep holding them. Murphy's fooling no one: His response was nothing more than a legalistic stalling tactic. And the use of such tricks is precisely why Team Trump seeks to deport criminal migrants swiftly. Recall that Donald Trump campaigned on quick, 'mass deportations' focused on the worst criminals, and won a decisive victory at the voting booth in November. But to keep illegal migrants — even violent ones — here as long as possible, the loony left tries to tie up cases in the courts and get favorable rulings from sympathetic judges. Murphy's #Resistance shows just how far they'll go. The eight men, now being held at US military base in Djibouti, were all convicted of violent crimes, including robbery, sexual assault and murder. Team Trump duly obtained orders of removal. Yet only South Sudan would take them. True, South Sudan is unstable — as other nations willing to take heinous illegal migrants off our hands may also be. But that shouldn't mean violent criminals from abroad must remain here, placing Americans at risk. Nor can they be kept on a military base for an extended time, imposing a burden on personnel there. Trump's election was a clear triumph over lawfare: Americans don't approve of prosecutors and judges stretching laws and resorting to legal tricks to get what lefties fail to get democratically. Judges like Murphy need to end the legal games and obey the law, especially when the order comes from the nation's highest court.


Newsweek
42 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Chiefs Request Extension on Deadline to Decide if Team Will Relocate
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. On the heels of the Cincinnati Bengals agreeing to terms on a new deal that will keep the team in place for the next 10 seasons, the Kansas City Chiefs are going in the opposite direction. Read more: Bengals and Cincinnati Agree to Massive Deal to Keep Team From Relocating The Chiefs have until June 30 to decide if the team will remain in Missouri or officially relocate to Kansas. However, Missouri legislators were officially blindsided by the organization's officially requesting an extension on the deadline. Chiefs president Mark Donovan requested the deadline extension, stating: "We believe the foundation is in place for something truly historic — not only for our team but for the future of the state's economy and national profile," Donovan wrote. Detail view of the Kansas City Chiefs logo prior to an NFL football AFC divisional playoff game between the Houston Texans and the Kansas City Chiefs at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on January 18,... Detail view of the Kansas City Chiefs logo prior to an NFL football AFC divisional playoff game between the Houston Texans and the Kansas City Chiefs at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on January 18, 2025, in Kansas City, Missouri. MoreWhat makes this extension that much more important is that it indicates that the Chiefs are seriously weighing the idea of relocating the team to another state. Donovan sent in the formal deadling extension via a letter. According to the Kansas City Star, "The letter comes just two weeks after Missouri lawmakers approved a sweeping stadiums funding plan in the hopes of preventing the Chiefs and Royals from leaving for Kansas. The Missouri proposal would allow the state to pay for up to 50% of new stadiums for the teams." Many of the legislators also felt the deal that was reached by Missouri for a reported $1.5 billion in renovations was enough to keep the Chiefs in Jackson County. Apparently, things are not that simple. "Well, that's a shot in the gut," Missouri Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican who handled the Missouri proposal in the House, said after learning of the letter. "I didn't see that coming. I thought the Chiefs were fairly secure staying right where they're at." Read more: Chiefs Stadium Renovations Shut Down by Local Taxpayers The entire ordeal began in April 2024 when an initial tax proposal was proposed to the taxpayers of Jackson County that would provide the renovations needed for Arrowhead Stadium and a new ballpark for the Kansas City Royals. However, taxpayers rejected that proposal, leading to a new plan having to be thought of. The news that the Chiefs could potentially relocate immediately reached the neighboring state of Kansas, as Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed legislation that guaranteed the Chiefs would receive what they would need to build a brand-new domed stadium. Read more:Chiefs' Threats to Move Team Gain Leverage As Stadium Renovations Await Having a domed stadium would mean the Chiefs would also be able to host the Super Bowl, which brings in some already lucrative opportunities. A year later, Missouri lawmakers were busy putting together the plan to keep the Chiefs in place despite the initial tax proposal being rejected. With Missouri finalizing that plan, the Chiefs taking some time to think things over could mean the organization might actually relocate. Missouri losing the Chiefs would be disastrous, as would it be incredible for Kansas to actually land a championship football team. Time will tell what happens, but the Chiefs are getting a little more time to think about what is best for the organization. For more on the Chiefs, head to Newsweek Sports.