logo
SC Senate votes to remove state treasurer over $1.8B accounting error

SC Senate votes to remove state treasurer over $1.8B accounting error

Yahoo22-04-2025

South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis defends himself during an eight-hour hearing in the state Senate Monday, April 21, 2025, amid efforts to remove the Republican from office. (Screenshot of SCETV legislative livestream.)
COLUMBIA — The South Carolina Senate voted late Monday to remove state Treasurer Curtis Loftis from office for his role in a $1.8 billion accounting error that went unreported for nearly a decade.
By a vote of 33 to 8, with five senators absent, the Republican-controlled Senate used an obscure constitutional measure to do something never done before in South Carolina history — remove an elected official from office — in this case one who is a member of the majority's own party. All eight votes against removal were cast by Republicans.
But senators don't have the authority to remove Loftis on their own.
The House would also need to approve his removal by a two-thirds majority, which would then require Gov. Henry McMaster to take the official action.
And Republican leaders in the House have not said whether they will take up the case.
South Carolina's accounting problems, which involved almost no actual money, stem from the changeover from the state's legacy accounting system to a new one.
During that process, a series of electronic ledger entries made it appear the state had $1.8 billion sitting untouched in a fund with no record of where it was supposed to go. A forensic accounting firm hired by the state ultimately found the entries were made in error and all but $200 million of the money was never real.
But what seemed to frustrate senators the most is that the state's financial officials never alerted the General Assembly to the issue.
Two Republican members of the panel that has spent the last year investigating the matter argued the treasurer was incompetent, untrustworthy and 'willfully neglected his duties' when he failed to report the mistakes to legislators.
'When he was faced with a $1.8 billion anomaly that remained in state records for years and years and years, he failed to detect it, he failed to report it, and when questioned, he failed to tell the truth about it,' said Sen. Stephen Goldfinch, R-Murrells Inlet.
'This was not momentary oversight or a technical misunderstanding by any means,' he said. 'It was a sustained failure of judgment, of duty and of candor.'
Questions from senators, Republicans and Democrats both, were largely focused on what the treasurer knew when and why he had not taken responsibility for his role.
'It makes it so difficult for me to tell my neighbor … It is so hard to defend,' Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, said to Loftis. 'Help me. Help us. Accept the responsibility.'
In response, Loftis said, 'Tell me what you want me to accept responsibility for, because it's complicated.'
Throughout the process, Loftis has maintained he did nothing wrong and instead laid the blame for the error outside his office. No money went missing, he has argued, and the whole investigation amounted to nothing more than political theater.
Lawyers representing the treasurer opened their arguments with a photo of Loftis and Republican President Donald Trump. They pointed to his winning track record — four terms in office — and he is now making his case to voters again, 14 months ahead of the Republican primary.
'Our democracy was built by letting issues like this be decided at the ballot box.' said attorney Deborah Barbier.
The legal team went on to remind many of the 34 Republicans in the 46-member Senate that they represent GOP-dominated districts.
The voters who elected them also likely cast their ballot for Loftis, said attorney Johnny Gasser, and choosing to remove Loftis amounted to telling residents their vote didn't matter.
'Do you really want to go down this path today?' Gasser asked.
But Sen. Larry Grooms, who has led the investigation, contended Loftis had not behaved like the treasurer voters believed they had elected in 2022 or any of the previous election years. Loftis, he said, decided 'protecting his public image was much more important than faithfully executing the duties of Office of State Treasurer.'
'Now that he's been outed, now that his secret is exposed, now that sunlight is shining upon him and his failures, he is a different person,' added the Bonneau Beach Republican. 'This Curtis Loftis is a liability to the finances of our state.'
And while the accounting error itself involved almost no real money, that hasn't stopped the state from racking up bills trying to get to the bottom of the problem.
'The self-proclaimed 'best friend of the taxpayer' is costing the taxpayers tens of millions in legal, auditing and oversight fees,' Grooms said. 'And these costs to the taxpayer are just beginning. With friends like this, who needs tax-and-spend liberals.'
Lofits did acknowledge his actions may have fallen short of expectations at times and promised to do a better job in the future.
'My passion for fighting what I perceive to be injustice may have been inappropriate, but my intent was always to do the honorable thing,' he told the Senate. 'I hope all of us in this room agree that we should rise above the moment and return our focus to what matters — serving the people of South Carolina with honor, respect and purpose.'
For many, it was too little, too late.
'If your banker has a $1.8 billion error in your account, what do you do?' Goldfinch said. 'At the end of the day, you go get a different banker.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

time12 minutes ago

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

NEW YORK -- The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.'

Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run for Georgia
Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run for Georgia

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run for Georgia

Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley is considering a new profession. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the former Vols coach is weighing his options on joining the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Georgia. Dooley, who would be joining the Republican Party, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he hasn't entered his name yet into the race against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff, and will have a decision on whether he'll enter the Republican primary in the "coming weeks." REQUIRED READING: Why Tennessee football fans are dissatisfied despite Josh Heupel's wild success "Georgia deserves strong, common-sense leadership in the U.S. Senate that represents all Georgians and focuses on results — not headlines," Dooley told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I believe our state needs a political outsider in Washington — not another career politician — to cut through the noise and partisanship and get back to real problem-solving." As noted by Saturday Down South, Dooley received a law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1994. Dooley, 56, is also the son of legendary Georgia coach Vince Dooley, who still holds the record as the Bulldogs' winningest coach with 201 victories. In his three seasons at Tennessee, Dooley led the Vols to a 15-21 overall record. His best season came during his first season on Rocky Top, as Tennessee went 6-7 overall and earned a berth to the Music City Bowl. Tennessee would lose its lone bowl game under Dooley, 30-27 to North Carolina in 2010. Following his tenure at Tennessee, Dooley spent four seasons in the NFL as the Dallas Cowboys' wide receiver coach before returning to the college ranks to be the offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at Missouri from 2018-19. His most recent coaching job came as a senior offensive analyst at Alabama for Nick Saban across the 2022 and 2023 seasons. This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run

Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House
Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House

A federal appeals court panel on Friday reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from several key areas where presidential press events are typically held, including the Oval Office, Air Force One and the president's home in Mar-A-Lago. The court left in place part of a lower-court order that required Trump to give AP access to events held in larger spaces, like the East Room. The ruling is a setback to the news organization's efforts to restore its access to the White House press pool, the small group of reporters and photographers who get access to a variety of White House spaces and other areas frequented by the president. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, largely granted the government's request to lift an April ruling from a district judge who blocked the ban. The decision from Rao and Katsas allows most of the ban to go back into effect while litigation over its constitutionality continues. The AP sued after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 27-page opinion, Rao wrote that 'these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Katsas signed onto Rao's opinion. The April injunction from district judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' Rao added. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, saying that the Supreme Court has never held that journalists or news organizations can be excluded from a forum based on their viewpoint. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. 'Looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.' The Trump administration has argued that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store