Today, the Attorney General of South Carolina announced there won't be any criminal charges against Governor Mark Sanford. From The State:

S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster has cleared Gov. Mark Sanford of any criminal conduct for two trips to South America to meet his Argentine lover and, also, his use of state aircraft, upgraded airfare and campaign money.

The Attorney General’s office conducted a five-month investigation of Sanford, which included new interviews Sanford’s staff, Commerce Department officials, a Department of Natural Resources pilot and an attorney with the Republican Governors Association. The investigation followed a S.C. State Ethics Commission probe that resulted in 37 civil charges against the govenor.

Last month, CREW included Sanford on our list of the nation's Worst Governors. Our report on why Sanford earned that designation can be viewed here.

Mark Sanford (R-SC) was elected governor of South Carolina in 2002 and was reelected in 2006. Prior to last year, there's a good chance that most Americans outside of South Carolina knew who Mark Sanford was. Not anymore. He became the face of unethical behavior when he disappeared for several days last spring, then had to admit to an extramarital affair. But, that's not his only ethical transgression. CREW found other areas of concern that resulted in Sanford's placement on our list of Worst Governors.

After the last year, the news that Sanford was on our list shouldn't have surprised people in South Carolina. Our report got coverage in some of the Palmetto State's biggest newspapers, including The State and The Post and Courier.

We've printing the full report on Sanford below. A pdf of the full document is here.

Gov. Sanford:

•    Abused his office for his personal benefit and the benefit of his friends

•    Violated campaign finance laws by failing to report in-kind contributions and improperly
converting campaign funds for personal use

•    Subordinated his responsibilities to his pursuit of an extramarital affair

•    Endangered his state’s economy by threatening to refuse stimulus funds

CHARGE ONE: ABUSE OF OFFICE

Gov. Sanford has a pattern of abusing his office for his own personal benefit. An investigation by the South Carolina State Ethics Commission established that Gov. Sanford used his position to secure luxury travel for himself, his friends, and his family—all at taxpayer expense.1    South Carolina law requires that all state employees fly economy class, “except where exigencies require otherwise.”2    Nevertheless, since 2005, Gov. Sanford has flown business class no fewer than 16 times and first class at least twice—often on costly international flights—without any work-related justification.3    On a few occasions, such as when Gov. Sanford flew to Paris and Brazil, there was no official business scheduled until the day after his arrival.4    Additionally, luxury travel was not unusual; multiple state employees testified that flying business class or better was the Sanford administration standard policy.5
Gov. Sanford’s abuse of flying privileges was not confined to commercial aircraft. He inappropriately used South Carolina’s state airplane fleet for non-official purposes, in clear violation of a state law explicitly forbidding this practice.6    On nine different occasions, Gov. Sanford used South Carolina planes to fly himself and/or his family and friends to personal functions, including a birthday dinner for a top supporter, a theme park opening and a haircut appointment.7

When state ethics officials wanted to conduct a hearing to review these and other ethics violations, Gov. Sanford signed a consent order with the South Carolina State Ethics Commission conceding that the “evidence presented [against him] is factual” and agreeing to pay a fine of $74,000 as well as restitution and other reimbursements totaling more than $66,000.8

CHARGE TWO: CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS

The State Ethics Commission found that Gov. Sanford violated South Carolina’s campaign finance disclosure laws.9    On 61 occasions, Gov. Sanford flew on privately owned aircraft without recording the flights as in-kind gifts, as required by state law.10    Gov. Sanford’s lawyers—even as they disputed the investigators’ findings—acknowledged that the governor failed to report several flights, and requested that their correspondence about the issue be added to his disclosure filings.11

Gov. Sanford also conceded as “factual” reports that he improperly converted nearly $3,000 in campaign money for personal use.12    South Carolina state law prohibits using campaign funds for purposes other than campaigning, with few exceptions.13    As a result, the State Ethics Commission found that Gov. Sanford violated the law when he used his campaign funds to pay for direct marketing services, a ticket to the presidential inauguration and a hunting trip to Dublin, Ireland.14

CHARGE THREE: DERELICTION OF DUTY

On June 18, 2009, Gov. Sanford disappeared for five days without a security detail, lied to his staff about where he was going and remained incommunicado for the duration of his trip.15    Gov. Sanford later admitted that he had left South Carolina for nearly a week to pursue an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina.16

This was not the first time Gov. Sanford traveled to Argentina to pursue his extramarital affair while neglecting his duties as governor.17    In June 2008, Gov. Sanford arranged to visit Argentina as part of a trade trip to Latin America.18    Even though U.S. trade policy at the time shunned contacts with the Argentine government in retaliation for reneged debt obligations, Gov. Sanford traveled there to meet with Argentine officials and visit his mistress.19    Gov. Sanford later admitted to meeting his mistress during the trip and agreed to refund taxpayers for the cost of the trip.20

In response to the scandal, the Republican-dominated South Carolina legislature censured Gov. Sanford for “dereliction of duty” and “official misconduct,” but did not vote to impeach him.21

CHARGE FOUR: REFUSING STIMULUS FUNDS

Gov. Sanford campaigned vigorously against President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill.22    As governor, he endangered the state’s stimulus funds by refusing to file the preliminary paperwork to accept the money, reversing himself only as the deadline approached.23    He became the last governor to apply for the money.24    Additionally, despite the fact that South Carolina had the nation’s second highest unemployment rate, Gov. Sanford sought to prevent the state legislature from accessing $700 million in stimulus money.25    The matter ended up in litigation26 and the South Carolina Supreme Court eventually forced Gov. Sanford to accept the contested $700 million.27

1 South Carolina State Ethics Commission, Investigative Report Re: Complaint C2010–020, November 18, 2009. (Hereinafter referred to as the Sanford Ethics Investigation). 2 Id. p. 10. 3 South Carolina State Ethics Commission, Consent Order Re: Complaint C2010–020, March 18, 2010, pp. 2–9. (Hereinafter referred to as the Sanford Ethics Consent Order).
4 Sanford Ethics Investigation, p. 17. 5 Sanford Ethics Investigation, pp. 12–13. 6 Sanford Ethics Consent Order, pp. 10–13. 7 Id. 8 Sanford Ethics Consent Order, pp. 19–22. 9 Sanford Ethics Consent Order, p. 19. 10 Sanford Ethics Investigation, p. 28. 11Sanford Ethics Investigation, p. 29; Mark Sanford’s Lawyer Says 4 Private Flights Unreported, The Associated Press, November 27, 2009.
12 Sanford Consent Order, pp. 13–17, 19. 13 Sanford Consent Order, pp. 13–17. 14 Sanford Consent Order, pp. 15–17,19. 15 Versha Sharma, The Missing Governor: A Timeline, TPM Muckraker, June 24, 2009; Clif LeBlanc and John O’Connor, Sanford Admits Affair: ‘I’ve Let Down a Lot of People’, The State, June 25, 2009. 16 Id. 17 Staff Report, Sanford Traveled to Argentina for Taxpayer-Funded Trip, The Post and Courier (Charleston, S.C.), June 25, 2009. 18 Kevin Hall, Sanford’s Trade Mission to Argentina Contradicted U.S. Policy, The McClatchy Company, June 25, 2009. 19 Id.; Staff Report, The Post and Courier, June 25, 2009. 20 Id. 21 Roddie Burris, John O’Connor and Gina Smith, How Sanford Avoided Impeachment, The State, December 20, 2009. 22 Mark Sanford, Why South Carolina Doesn’t Want ‘Stimulus’, The Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2009. 23 James Rosen, Sanford Gives In on Stimulus, Will Seek Funds for S.C., The McClatchy Company, April 3, 2009. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Yvonne Wenger, Sanford Hands Off Decision, The Post and Courier (Charleston, S.C.), June 2, 2009. 27 Tom Cohen and Peter Hamby, South Carolina Governor Trumped, Must Take Stimulus Money, CNN Politics, June 4, 2009.

CREW today released our first-ever Worst Governors report – an in-depth look at America’s most incompetent and unethical state leaders, as well as www.WorstGovernors.org, the report’s website.

CREW reviewed the job performance of all 50 U.S. governors before identifying the worst 11. The governors on CREW’s list exemplify the worst qualities of our political leaders- corruption, cronyism, self-enrichment, incompetency and resistance to transparent and accountable government.

The report also features CREW’s Worst Governors Index – a Harpers Index-style list of facts and figures from the report. For example:

• Number of miles Gov. Perdue flew in a private jet provided by a lobbyist to attend to a NASCAR race: 30
• Cost of the plane ride: $2,400
• Maximum acceptable value of a lobbyist gift to state officials in Georgia according to Gov. Perdue’s own executive order: $25

CREW’s unranked list of the 11 worst governors includes:

CREW’s executive director, Melanie Sloan, said today:

From Gov. Jindal’s hundreds of campaign-contributing state appointees to Gov. Paterson’s efforts to pressure a domestic violence victim to stay silent – CREW’s Worst Governors report leaves you wondering if these really are the people best equipped to handle the complicated problems faced across the nation. There has been a great deal of focus on the ethics of Congress over the past few years, but CREW’s report shows that state governments are not immune to ethics problems. Too often -- whether in Washington or in South Dakota -- our country’s political leaders are more focused on what’s best for the favored few, rather than on improving the lives of Americans.

Click here to visit WorstGovernors.org

Click here to read CREW’s full Worst Governors report

Click here to read CREW’s Worst Governors Index

South Carolina's ethically tainted governor may not have been forced from office, but his actions will cut into his pocketbook. Late last week, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) agreed to a legal settlement over ethics issues in which he admits no guilt but pays more than $140,000 in fines and reimbursement.

A portion of this amount will reimburse the state for Sanford's use of state aircraft, high-priced airline tickets and other travel costs.

Also last week, a judge finalized Sanford's divorce from his wife, Jenny.

What is most amazing is that a governor like Sanford who has been so thoroughly discredited can continue to put out press statements with phrases such as this:

"I continue to maintain my belief in the innocence of my actions being judged by the Ethics Commission."

Unbelievable.

CREW has talked a lot about the mysterious C Street House in Washington, D.C., the house's connection to the shadowy group called "the Fellowship," and its list of ethically tainted ex-residents. In this Sunday editorial, the New York Times reminds us of some of those former residents:

The $1.8 million townhouse came to public notice last year when three recent tenants — Senator John Ensign; Mark Sanford, the South Carolina governor and former congressman; and former Representative Charles Pickering Jr. — were embroiled in marital infidelity scandals. Mr. Pickering was accused by his estranged wife of entertaining a mistress at the house.

Of course, the ethical concerns swirling around Ensign and Sanford go well beyond infidelity itself.

In this TV report last week, CREW's Melanie Sloan was interviewed about C Street House. The Times editorial agrees with CREW and with a group of Ohio clergy that has filed a lawsuit challenging the C Street House's right to have a tax exemption:

The C Street Center does not offer the public services, religious teachings and ecclesiastical structure of a church. It also does not have to reveal its source of income to the I.R.S., including what individuals, corporations or political groups might subsidize the place.

Family values, human frailty and forgiveness are the stuff of spiritual counseling that evangelical tenants claim goes on privately inside the C Street Center. All well and good, but that does not make a church of a boarding house nor require a tithing of taxpayers.

Critics enjoy slamming the Washington bureaucracy for moving so slowly, but the wheels don't seem to turn any faster in South Carolina. More than two months and one week after the State Ethics Commission charged Gov. Mark Sanford with 37 ethics violations, the panel has yet to hold a single hearing on the charges.

And don't expect one soon. Herbert Hayden, the commission's executive director, told The State newspaper why hearings have not yet begun.

The commissioners all have day jobs, Hayden said, and the Sanford hearing is expected to be a long day.

"It's strictly a scheduling issue," Hayden said, "With the assumed length of the hearing, it's going to have to be a special day set aside."

However, the case could be disposed of before a hearing if Sanford and the Ethics Commission agree to a settlement.

At this rate, I'm beginning to wonder if a new governor will be elected by the time the S.C. commission completes hearings on its own charges.

If you need a reminder as to why Gov. Sanford is such an ethically disgraced official, click here, go to page 4 and read "Gov. Mark Sanford's Excellent Argentinian Adventure."

CREW today sent a letter to C-SPAN chairman and CEO Brian Lamb, asking that his network not air tomorrow’s National Prayer Breakfast, or at least properly identify the event’s sponsor as the shadowy religious organization known as “the Fellowship” or “the Family.”

The National Prayer Breakfast is often misconstrued by the public as an official government event, a mistake reinforced by the plethora of presidential seals throughout the room, a yearly presidential address, and an organizing committee of members of Congress. In reality, the event is a recruiting and networking tool for the Family – a cult-like religious organization that has pushed an unorthodox brand of Christianity within powerful political, military and economic circles around the world for 50 years.

The Family is linked – via its infamous C Street House – to highly unethical members of Congress, including Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), and former Rep. “Chip” Pickering (R-MS). The organization’s members have also been behind the deplorable Ugandan anti-gay legislation calling for the death penalty for anyone convicted of having gay sex.

CREW’s executive director, Melanie Sloan, said:

“The mere fact that C-SPAN, which is dedicated to political coverage, broadcasts the breakfast contributes to the notion that it is an official government event. Viewers see images of a ballroom filled with presidential paraphernalia and high-ranking government officials, and the words ‘National Prayer Breakfast’ appearing on the bottom of their screens. By airing this, C-SPAN may be unwittingly contributing to the false perception the breakfast is government-sponsored and sanctioned. At a minimum, C-SPAN should label the event as sponsored by the Family and provide some context so viewers can fully appreciate what they are seeing: our top government leaders lending legitimacy to a shadowy, intolerant religious organization.”

Today’s letter follows a letter to the president and congressional leadership on Monday calling for a boycott of the event. Click here to read CREW’s letter to C-SPAN, click here to read CREW’s letter from Monday.

By a margin of 102-11, the South Carolina House of Representatives has voted to censure its ethically disgraced governor. According to the Associated Press:

Before the vote, (Gov. Mark) Sanford said he wouldn't attend the session or watch and would have no comment. "It is what it is," Sanford said.

... The censure requires state Senate approval for passage.

... In addition to the censure, Sanford also faces up to $74,000 in fines from the State Ethics Commission, which contends he broke more than three dozen laws involving travel in pricey airline seats, using state aircraft for personal and political trips and improper reimbursements.

Gov. Sanford's serious ethical lapses were cited last month by CREW when we released our Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009. Click here to read this document -- the Sanford scandal is summarized on page 4.

The South Carolina House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a resolution that formally censures Gov. Mark Sanford for "dereliction in his duties of office as Governor and for official misconduct that has brought dishonor to himself."

Click here to read the text of the resolution that the SC House will consider.

A state House committee declined last month to approve an impeachment resolution, opting instead to support a censure of the GOP governor.

The state House of Representatives in South Carolina is expected to vote next week on a motion to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his serious ethical lapses. But here's the catch.

The SC Senate might not vote on censure for several weeks -- or it might never vote. That's the assessment of Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who suggested to a newspaper that it's no big deal whether the state Senate votes on censure or not:

At the end of the day, what does it matter? Either you approve or disapprove. I don't know anybody (in the Senate) who supports (Sanford's) behavior."

But McConnell is missing the point. There is value in having both houses of the Legislature go on the record with a formal vote of censure. If nothing else, doing so reaffirms the Legislature's commitment to holding state officials accountable.

If both houses of the SC Legislature have the time to vote on a resolution honoring a Union County library for being named "the best small library in America," then surely both houses can take the time to vote on the motion to censure Gov. Sanford.

In case you missed it, CREW named the Sanford scandal one of its Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009.