COLUMBIA -- Several Republican candidates for governor say they intend to boycott a series of planned debates sponsored by the state party this spring over what they claim is an excessive cost to participate.
Party officials claim the burgeoning revolt is merely the result of a misunderstanding by the candidates' teams in interpreting promotional materials and that there never was a cost for candidates to qualify for the debate stage.
Early in the week Feb. 24, the S.C. Republican Party issued a finalized calendar for four televised debates between their party's gubernatorial candidates at locations across the state, with the first scheduled April 1 at the Newberry Opera House.
Candidates were quick to line up, with several publicly announcing plans to commit to each event.
That was, until pricing around the event went public.
Tickets to the events were exclusive, with eligibility for complimentary admission prioritized for members of the party's Elephant Club of donors who had pledged at least $15 per month to help support the party as well as certain "major donors," according to internal documents viewed by The Post and Courier.
But the party also offered a menu of "sponsorship" opportunities in conjunction with the debates ranging from special VIP ticket specials to a $20,000 per-debate host package, which included 50 total tickets as well as reserved seating, reception naming rights and branding on marketing materials.
Some of the campaigns got sticker shock.
Several members of Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette's campaign took to social media to protest the cost of the event, saying they had been told the $20,000 per event cost was the only method for the campaigns themselves to get tickets to the events, suggesting their team might boycott the debates as a result.
Congresswoman Nancy Mace's team quickly followed suit, reneging on their plan to participate over a pricing regime they called akin to "extortion."
Even party officials weighed in.
CJ Westfall, a GOP campaign consultant who serves as chairman of the Dorchester County Republican Party, alleged the pricing list was little more than a "grift" intended to enrich the party, suggesting that a portion of the event's proceeds would go directly to compensating SCGOP Chair Drew McKissick as a commission.
Tyson Grinstead, the state's Republican National Committeeman and chairman of the Richland County GOP, posted a flier for his own county event with all five candidates on April 25, noting admission to the event would be free.
"It's a shakedown plain and simple," Chris Grant, a member of Evette's campaign team, wrote on social media. "Not surprised they are scrambling now that they got caught. The party is supposed to help candidates raise money, not find ways to squeeze them to line pockets of the party."
Party officials said the fallout was a misunderstanding.
The party has long had paid ticketing to their events, with the sponsorship packages largely intended to ensure campaigns would pay if they wanted to fill the debate hall with faces friendly to their campaigns. And even then, there was nothing in the rules requiring campaigns to pay to attend.
Debate protocols reviewed by The Post and Courier allows for complementary admission for up to five family members, internal documents show, as well as up to four passes for staff that, while not a guarantee for seating, would still allow candidates' teams access to the venue. The only criteria for participation, the rules state, is a requirement candidates had raised at least $100,000 for their campaigns -- a metric routinely used to ensure only credible candidates are given access to the debate stage.
"Nobody is charging a candidate to come to any of these," said Leighton Gray Smith, executive director of the SCGOP.
By afternoon, the party was scrambling to resolve the issue, issuing a statement disputing candidates' interpretation of events.
"We put together three completely free opportunities for our candidates to get free, prime-time exposure in every media market in our state so they could speak directly to our Republican primary voters," McKissick said in a statement. "Not one single candidate has been told that they have to pay or raise any money in order to take advantage of that, and they've all been provided with the qualifications and guidelines to participate."
"Sponsorships are just that: they're for corporate sponsors and major donors -- not candidates," he added.
It did little to quell the anger. After the statement, an adviser on Evette's campaign texted to say there had been "no change" in their campaign's position on the debates.
U.S. Rep. gubernatorial Ralph Norman's campaign took to social media to argue all the campaigns should be granted 50 free tickets each, while Mace’s camp said they believed free admission for supporters should be standard practice.
“These SCGOP dopes are making our decision real easy,” Grant wrote in response to the party’s statement.
Attorney General Alan Wilson’s campaign accused his opponents — namely, Evette — of using the prices as an excuse to avoid debating him.
“No one is requiring candidates to pay any money, let alone $20,000, to debate,” they said in a statement. Evette “knows that, and her team knows that. But they think South Carolina families are too stupid to see through their spin.”
Candidate filing closes March 30.