Community Impacts
Serving the Lowcountry. Fighting for South Carolina.
Stay up to date on the key issues.
Inside the Issues That Matter Most
From the Statehouse to our neighborhoods, Senator Tom Davis is committed to creating meaningful change. This page is a living reflection of the work, relationships, and results that continue to shape a stronger, more resilient South Carolina.
In The News
What Others are Saying
Catch up on coverage of Senator Davis’s work in the press. This section features articles, interviews, and videos highlighting his stance on critical issues and his continued service to South Carolina.
In The Community
Together, We Move South Carolina Forward
Senator Davis believes in being present—whether listening, leading, or lending a hand. Browse photos from events, town halls, and community gatherings with the people he proudly serves.
Policy in Action: Past Updates
Legislation That's Made a Difference
See the results of Tom’s leadership in action. This section highlights past policy wins, reforms, and initiatives that have improved lives across the Lowcountry and beyond.
Energy Policy
In May 2019, in a State House rotunda packed with media, renewable-energy activists and solar-industry entrepreneurs, I stood alongside Gov. Henry McMaster as he signed into law a bill that I authored titled the "Energy Freedom Act." It has been widely reported that this new law is about promoting clean energy, and that's partially true. But it's really about something more fundamental: it is a first and important step away from the energy-production monopolies that have saddled South Carolinians with some of the highest electricity bills in the nation, and toward real competition through an open market of many buyers and many sellers that will provide downward pressure on the cost of producing energy. Over 60 years ago, the South Carolina General Assembly began passing laws that provided mega-utilities with service-area monopolies and guaranteed them a generous return on their invested capital. That made sense then, given the high fixed costs of building plants and power grids and the general difficulty the South had at the time in attracting investment capital. That same model is essentially still in place today, with Santee Cooper, Duke Energy and Dominion Energy (formerly SCE&G) holding the territorial monopolies. But as the nuclear-facility debacle in Fairfield County illustrated, with $9 billion having been spent by Santee Cooper and SCE&G (and to be paid for by their customers!) on a now-abandoned project, there are dangers inherent in this model. Mega-utilities with service-area monopolies will inevitably pursue capital-intensive projects because the return they get is directly related to what they spend. There is little incentive for them to embrace cutting-edge technologies in order to lower energy-production costs for the benefit of consumers. As a result we have not fully benefited from the explosion in information and communications technology which, in other parts of our country, has revolutionized every aspect of the electricity-supply chain. That technology makes it much easier to communicate, coordinate, and automate grid interactions and facilitates access to new market participants that are naturally incentivized to innovate. The Energy Freedom Act will start to open up the grid to this new technology and these new participants. Among other things, like eliminating the cap on the credit to customers for the excess power their rooftop solar panels produce, it says if an independent power producer demonstrates the ability to generate electricity more cheaply than a mega-utility, then that IPP must be allowed to sell that power to the grid, with savings being passed along to consumers. The objective here is for consumers to pay rates that are a function of what competition in the energy-production market dictates, as opposed to simply paying a mega-utility a guaranteed rate of return on its invested capital. And also to remove barriers to market-driven innovations, for no one knows what else markets may come up with when the grid is open to all. This latter point was made in a recent piece published in Utility Drive: "As thousands of new 5G cell towers are installed across the country over the next few years and ubiquitous sensors allow for more sophisticated management of electric load and accommodation of innovation, the 'Internet of Things' has the power to revolutionize the electric industry … Like the telecommunication industry, where customers have transitioned from purchasing a monthly landline service to enrolling in subscription plans for data and messaging services, the electric-utility industry has the potential to deliver innovations in service that have heretofore been unimaginable." The Energy Freedom Act will help clear the way for these innovations, but considerable work remains to be done, for the old way of doing business and those who benefit from it never yield to any change without a fight. In particular, careful attention must be paid to the actions of the Public Service Commission, which is charged with implementing the new law. Still, this was a win for South Carolinians and a good first step.
Ethics Reform
This op-ed ( Davis and Sheheen: Senate killed weak ethics bill ) I co-authored with South Carolina State Sen. Vincent Sheheen (D-Kershaw) sets forth my thoughts on ethics reform:
"We take ethics in government very seriously. When the people's trust is broken, the people's business cannot be done. Real ethics reform in South Carolina must be based on two overriding principles: First, complete financial disclosure by officials, and second, an independent body to investigate alleged wrongdoing by elected officials in the legislative or executive branches.
"On the last day of the South Carolina General Assembly’s session, House Bill 3945 – commonly referred to as the ethics bill – died when a majority of the State Senate, on a bi-partisan basis, refused to pass it. We joined with other state senators in insisting that our state deserved better than a watered-down bill that failed to deliver basic reforms.
"No one can reasonably argue that our state’s current ethics laws adequately check the behavior of those elected to serve the people. Those laws, last revised over two decades ago, have earned our state a grade of “F” and a numerical score of 57 from the State Integrity Investigation, a collaborative project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International.
"The version of HB 3945 recently debated in the State Senate had a section requiring disclosure of income sources, but not the amounts received from those sources – information vital to assessing whether a lawmaker has a conflict of interest. But what truly made the bill unacceptable was the deletion of the section requiring some independent oversight of elected officials’ behavior.
"Many of those following the legislative process closely saw this coming. A few weeks before session ended, the Rock Hill Herald wrote: “State lawmakers appear willing to pass a watered-down ethics reform bill that continues to allow legislators to police themselves. We question whether a bill that doesn’t contain a provision for an independent oversight commission composed of non-legislators is even worth passing.”
"We asked ourselves that question, and decided that it wasn’t. The Greenville News put it well when it wrote: “There is no conceivable way a House or Senate ethics committee can always objectively investigate alleged ethics violations by its own members; and even if an objective investigation were possible, the illusion of subjectivity creates questions about any conclusions.”
"Still, some contended that passing a watered-down ethics bill would have been better than nothing. They argued, "Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good." "The (Columbia) State correctly summed up the flaw in this reasoning: “The problem lies in the temptation it (passing HB 3945) gives our legislators to check ‘ethics reform’ off their to-do list and go on their merry way, as if they have reformed our ethics law.” And that newspaper correctly stated the bill “should be passed only with the very clear and explicit acknowledgment that it is not an ethics-reform bill.”"Far from acknowledging that it wasn’t an ethics-reform bill, however, HB 3945 was praised by its proponents on the floor of the State Senate as comprehensive ethics reform. And senior lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle privately acknowledged that, if the bill was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor, “ethics was done for another 20 years.” The people of South Carolina deserve better than this.
"Moreover, in addition to the critical omission of independent oversight of elected officials’ actions, HB 3945 was deficient in that it broadly defined “electioneering communications” to include any person or group that even references a candidate in a communication within 60 days of a general or 30 days of a primary election. This would force many non-political organizations to disclose their top donors, thus chilling free speech – which is why government-watchdog groups from across the ideological spectrum opposed the bill.
"South Carolina citizens deserve access to information on whether their elected officials have conflicts of interest and to an independent process to hold them accountable, and right now they have neither. Nor would HB 3945 have provided it. Ultimately ethical government only comes when we elect ethical people. But a strong ethics law would help hold unethical officials accountable. The job now is to pass a law next session that does just that."
Environmental Stewardship
In 2019, I received the "Green Tie Award" as most-outstanding legislator from the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, and in March 2020, the CVSC endorsed my candidacy for reelection to the South Carolina Senate for District 46, which includes portions of Beaufort and Jasper counties. CVSC’s endorsement letter notes that my “leadership on clean energy has been nothing short of outstanding,” and that my legislative successes include: * Introducing and shepherding the Energy Freedom Act across the finish line * Introducing legislation to expand solar access for customers statewide * Holding the Public Service Commission accountable for their decisions * Championing energy market reform * Standing strong against offshore drilling * Fighting against rolling back citizens’ rights to a clean and healthy environment * Holding polluters accountable and ending solid-waste loopholes Also, in December 2019, I was chosen by the South Carolina Sierra Club to receive its Legislator of the Year Award, with the Club noting: "We are grateful for your efforts at the State House and consider you a friend of the Club. Under your leadership, we recently made significant changes to the regulation and oversight of energy development and distribution in South Carolina. We greatly appreciate your hard work in championing the Energy Freedom Act and heralding the advancement of solar power in our state, among other conservation issues. Thank you for being a true public servant."
Veterans Issues
For several years, I served as the South Carolina Governor's representative on the South Carolina Military Base Task Force. Through serving on that Task Force, I learned that BRAC, in future base closing deliberations, will consider whether a base is located in a state that has addressed particular “quality-of-life” issues unique to military families. I have sponsored bills that have passed by the legislature and been signed into law by the governor that accomplish those quality of life measures. They are: * A bill to allow members of the military and their spouse and dependents to vote by absentee ballot in all elections * A bill to increase protections for military personnel against predatory lending * A bill to make it easier for military spouses to transfer professional license * A bill to extend property-tax exemption to property used for military housing * A bill to provide Medicaid waiver protections to in-state members of the armed service * A bill to improve communications between state child welfare agencies and the local installations * A bill to promote affordable child care for military children * A bill to create a task force to identify issues related to military-connected children * A bill that commissions an annual report re: the performance of military-connected children who attend our schools * A bill to create a Veterans Treatment Court that habilitates veterans with addictions * A bill to provide in-state tuition rates for military personnel and dependent I am proud that South Carolina ranks #1 in the nation in enacting laws that enhance the quality of life of our military community and recognize the unique challenges those families face.
Criminal-Justice Reform
The Republican Party champions individual liberty and limited (i.e., constitutional) government, and that's why it champions criminal justice reform. In 2019, President Donald Trump spoke at the Second Step Presidential Justice Forum in Columbia, S.C., hailing the passage of the First Step Act, legislation that provides for programs to support federal prisoners reentering society.
In a piece for National Review, published in November 2019, Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah and one of the First Step Act’s leading advocates, neatly made the conservative case for the bill and for federal-level criminal-justice reform. “Unlike some reformers, I don’t think our justice system is fundamentally broken, unjust, or corrupt,” Lee wrote. “I know from experience that dangerous criminals exist—individuals who are incapable of or uninterested in rehabilitation and change. . . . But my time as a prosecutor also tells me that not every criminal is dangerous or incapable of living a productive life,” he wrote. “My faith as a Christian teaches me that many people are capable of redemption. And my instincts as a conservative make me believe that the government can be reformed to work better.”
For this reason, I authored a bill that was signed into law by the governor that expunged non-violent criminal records when a juvenile turns 17. Many young people have been discriminated against in employment, educational opportunities, and enlistment in the military service because of having a juvenile-court record, and passing this bill will help them make a fresh start.
Healthcare Reform
South Carolina, with its estimated 3,600 primary-care physicians, ranks 40th among the states with just 77.5 physicians per 100,000 of population (compared with 90.1 per 100,000 nationwide). Moreover, there is a strong bias in the distribution of those physicians to urban or suburban areas, and 42 of our 46 counties are medically underserved. One county (Lee) has no physicians at all.
This supply problem is compounded by the fact that, in recent years, medical students have been choosing specialties outside of the primary-care field. There is now an emphasis and increased value placed on specialized skills. Primary-care providers have historically been the backbone of the rural healthcare system, and increasingly there are less of them to go around.
So what can we do to increase supply? One way is to better utilize our state’s estimated 3,500 advanced-practice registered nurses and 1,400 physician assistants. These non-physician healthcare professionals hold at least a master’s degree, supplemented with advanced education and clinical training to autonomously assess, diagnose and manage a patient’s health care at the primary-care level.
The problem, however, is that South Carolina laws severely restrict the health-care services these nurses and physician assistants are able to provide. Perhaps the most restrictive laws were the ones prohibiting them from providing care for any patient who lies outside a 45-mile radius of a supervising physician. Since the majority of physicians practice in urban or suburban areas, nurses and physician assistants who are ready, willing and able to fill unmet health-care needs are legally barred from doing so.
I authored two bills to remove these legal barriers so that these nurses and physician assistants stand alongside our primary-care physicians to provide basic health-care services to South Carolinians, and both of my bills were passed by the South Carolina General Assembly and signed into law by the governor. The result has been a dramatic increase in the supply of providers, which not only increases health care access and improves health care outcomes, but also drives down costs (since the market equilibrium price decreases when the supply curve shifts to the right).
In recognition of these legislative accomplishments, I received "Legislator of the Year" awards from the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the South Carolina Public Health Association.
Illegal Immigration
Power over borders is an inherent aspect of national sovereignty, and the same holds when it comes to state sovereignty. That's why I cosponsored and supported S. 997, a bill passed by the South Carolina Senate to require the tracking of refugees entering the state of South Carolina and to hold refugees’ sponsors liable for any crimes committed by settlers from terrorist nations.
The federal government says that state law, which requires state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, usurps federal authority. In saying this it relies on “federal preemption,” a court-declared doctrine that says states are prohibited from passing their own laws in areas where federal law already “occupies the field.” Immigration, the feds’ argument runs, is one of those areas. I disagree.
The federal preemption doctrine only precludes state laws that contradict federal ones, not those that are consistent. The United States Supreme Court held in 1976 that there is no indication in the federal immigration law “that Congress intended to preclude state regulation touching on aliens in general.” And the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona, held in 1983 that “where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.”
K-12 Education
According to the United States Department of Education, South Carolina's per-pupil spending for K-12 education is right at the national average -- about half of the states spend more than us, the rest spend less. Yet despite being about 25th in the nation in terms of funding, we are 49th in terms of outcomes (as measured by metrics like test scores and graduation rates). This glaring disparity is why the South Carolina Supreme Court, in the Abbeville case concerning the adequacy of public education in our state, said this: "The evidence demonstrates that there is a clear disconnect between spending and results.”
If we want to improve our system of free public education in South Carolina – and I do – we have to start doing something more than simply spending more money. First, we must have more of the money that's appropriated spent in the classroom -- on increasing teachers' salaries and improving instructional materials, that is, on the things that actually lead to better educated children -- and less spent on the bloated K-12 bureaucracy. And that's exactly what we have done in the past two years.
We also need means-based programs that allow public education dollars to follow students from lower-income families to the school of their parents' choosing. Giving them the same choices that students from wealtheir families already enjoy is a matter of equity and fairness; moreover, increased choice breeds competition and creates a powerful incentive for schools to get better.
School choice is also a way out of the poverty cycle for low-income families. As the Wall Street Journal noted in 2010, 2,000 of the nation's 20,000 high schools produce roughly 50 percent of all dropouts, and African-American children have a 50/50 chance of having to attend one of these so-called "dropout factories."
Confederate Flag
For many years a Confederate battle flag flew beside the Confederate Soldier Monument on the grounds of the South Carolina State House. I know this flag is proudly honored by many fine South Carolinians as a symbol of their heritage and urged acceptance of and respect for that reality. But I also know that this flag has been hijacked by hate groups and is perceived by many as symbol of human bondage and slavery, and for that reason I voted for it to be furled and removed from the State House grounds -- which it was on July 10, 2015. My deceased friend, Clementa Pinckney, said it very well at the tender age of 26: “If we are able to resolve this issue, we have the great potential of solving larger problems and larger issues in the state. I don't argue with anyone who feels the flag represents their Southern heritage. However, it is not their Statehouse. It is our Statehouse."
Greenspace
Fellow Beaufort County Resident: In the over 14 years I have served in the South Carolina Senate, I have never voted for a tax increase. However, despite this, I ask you to vote in November’s election for a one-penny sales tax in Beaufort County, a/k/a, the Greenspace Penny, for a period of two years, to raise $100 million to purchase and preserve greenspace in the county. Visit https://www.voteyesforgreenspace.com for specifics about the Greenspace Penny, but here are a few of the more important ones: 1) the penny tax must stop after two years; 2) the proceeds must be used for to purchase greenspace that will remain that way in perpetuity; 3) 40 percent of the greenspace penny will be paid by visitors to Beaufort County; and 4) numerous safeguards ensure transparency and unbiased greenspace purchases. Beaufort County has been a leader in conservation and has taken some smaller-scale steps to protect one of the largest intact coastal ecosystems on the East Coast. But despite this, or perhaps because of it, the county is still among the fastest growing counties in South Carolina and has been for years. If the development densities already approved by local governments come to fruition – as they rapidly are – the number of rooftops in the county will more than double. This will destroy our county’s unique quality of life and sitting back and doing nothing in the face of that ruination is simply not acceptable. Look at what happened to the Chesapeake Bay: Maryland and Virginia sat idly by as unchecked development stripped the bay of its natural defenses to runoff pollutants, essentially destroying an entire ecosystem. Letting the same thing happen in Beaufort County would be both immoral and economically stupid. I wish there was another way of tackling this threat, but there isn’t. The development densities already on the books cannot be taken away without an action for damages by landowners. I wish local governments hadn’t approved such unsustainable densities, but they did. There is still time to preserve our unique sense of place in Beaufort County, but time is running out and approval of the Greenspace Penny is critical. Senator Tom Davis
Voter ID
In South Carolina, when someone attempts to vote, he or she must provide a valid and current photo ID. I believe that such is necessary to ensure the integrity of our electoral process. First, the evidence suggests that attempts at voter fraud are increasing. On October 6, 2008, the New York Times – hardly a right-wing rag – reported that about 400,000 ACORN filings had been rejected by authorities as duplicates, incomplete, or fraudulent. Think about that, and then think about the recent elections that have been decided by bizarrely slim margins. Second, when it comes to elections, there seems to be a new “winning at all costs” subculture taking root in America -- an "ends justify the means" mentality. For example, the host of a program on MSNBC said this in regard to an election in the State of Massachusetts: “I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right, I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are.” “A voter ID requirement strengthens voters’ rights by protecting the votes of all who vote legally,” writes Matthew Rousu, Professor of Economics at Susquehanna University for Forbes. “When voter fraud occurs, it dilutes and weakens the votes of all law-abiding voters. One could make a reasonable argument that by not forcing identification and encouraging fraud, you are violating the promise of one person, one vote.” He is absolutely right.
Taxes & Spending
In March 2016, one of my constituents had a letter published in the local newspaper critical of my blocking a 75% gas-tax hike. His letter evinces a sentiment unfortunately shared by many politicians in Columbia, that is, if only we took more money from the people, then all our problems could be solved -- roads would be repaired, kids would be better educated, people would be healthier, etc. But I've learned, through my service in the legislative branch as a state senator and, prior to that, in the executive branch as the governor's chief of staff, that things aren't that simple. Simply raising taxes to solve a problem isn't the soultion; rather, it is necessary to do the harder thing -- to spend time figuring out why, despite already ever-increasing levels of spending, we aren't getting outcomes people deserve. And when, as is the case with our state's spending on roads and bridges, that inquiry reveals the inner-workings of a system of cronyism and horse-trading, then yes, I am going to insist on reforms to that system and block any proposal that simply increases taxes and dumps more money into it. That's always been the approach I've taken when it comes to spending the people's money, and it always will be. Another constituent wrote me a letter a few years ago that claimed my desire to cap state-government spending betrays ignorance of the role government plays in the economy. “When the state spends money, that money goes into the economy to pay salaries, purchase goods, pay for services, etc.” he wrote. “It is the same as when I spend money.” Well, of course government spending affects the economy. And when it spends taxpayers’ money on the essential things only government can do, the affect is positive. But when government decides, as it so often does, to do more, it is a mistake to assume public and private spending are the same. Land, labor, and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and society benefits when they are put to their most-productive use. Private individuals, guided by the free market to produce what consumers need, always spend money more productively than politicians and bureaucrats.
Roads & Bridges
First, I reject the premise that insufficient funding is the primary reason for our roads and bridges being in poor repair (which they undoubtedly are). Total annual spending for our transportation infrastructure in 2009 (my first year in the State Senate) was $1.051 billion; in the 2019 budget, it was $2.4 billion. But despite that dramatic increase in spending, many of our roads and bridges remain in bad condition because spending decisions are made by a politically motivated and legislatively controlled state agency. Instead of debating ways to take more money from taxpayers, the South Carolina General Assembly should focus on structural reforms to the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (SIB), the two state agencies that makes the expenditure decisions. The necessary structural fix here is to have the governor appoint all of the SCDOT commissioners and SIB members in order to establish a clear line of accountability for expenditure decisions. That way the voters can hold an elected official directly accountable for the wise or unwise spending of their money. Also, any serious plan to address our state’s transportation situation must include devolving control over some roads to local governments. There are approximately 65,800 miles of roads in South Carolina, and 63% of them are controlled by the state; by way of comparison, other state transportation departments (on average) control only 19% of roads. The fix here is for the state to transfer a significant portion of those road miles to local governments, along with an appropriate share of existing gas-tax revenue. Local governments would have better knowledge than a centralized entity of local road conditions, and their proximity and accountability to the citizens who use the roads in their borders would ensure a more productive expenditure of dollars. The easy – but incredibly destructive – answer to fixing the condition of our state’s roads and bridges is to raise taxes; it takes far more thought, effort and political backbone to spending existing money more wisely. But the people of South Carolina shouldn’t expect anything less from their elected officials.
Property Taxes
In 2006 the South Carolina General Assembly responded to outcry from over-taxed homeowners with a law that eliminated school funding from their property tax. Unfortunately, that’s only half the story. When lawmakers passed Act 388, they didn’t cut our overall tax burden, but expanded it by imposing higher sales taxes and additional taxes on businesses, second homes, and industrial and manufacturing properties.
Another insidious impact of that law is this: putting a higher tax burden on those other categories of property deters private capital investment and adds to an unhealthy crony-capitalism environment where a handful of powerful politicians can, and do, provide special treatment to well-connected companies.
So the question isn’t whether Act 388 should be amended, but how. As we begin that process, two facts must be kept in mind: First, state government in South Carolina takes far too much money out of the pockets of South Carolinians. Second, tax reform never benefits the people unless the overall amount of government spending decreases; simply lowering one tax while raising another – so-called “revenue-neutral” reform – is nothing but a shell game.
Some simply want Act 388 repealed. I reject that approach because it would more than double property taxes on homes, and do nothing to reduce the overall amount of money taken from individuals and spent by government. Unless the overall amount of government spending decreases, it is better to do nothing and spare people the illusion that politicians are actually doing something worthwhile.
A better approach is to impose the cap on government spending, and use money in excess of the cap to provide tax relief for owners of properties who did not benefit from Act 388.
Religious Liberty
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The religious freedom recognized and protected by the First Amendment includes the right to religious belief and expression and a guarantee that the government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others.
That said, however, unlike all of the 2016 GOP presidential I didn’t think ?the Kim Davis situation involved a “violation of religious liberty.” If she believes it is a sin to facilitate gay marriages, then she should have resigned. How does she have the right, in the name of religious liberty, to keep a job if she's unwilling to do what that job requires? Am I missing something? I think the power of judges to lock people up indefinitely for contempt is very problematic, and I also believe marriage as a crucial social institution can survive without the coercive power of the state and that government ought to get out of the marriage business entirely; those, however, are separate issues. I just don't see this issue as one involving religious liberty.