Key Insights from the first SC Attorney General Debate
Pickens County held a Town Hall SC Attorney General Debate between the 3 Republican candidates running for S.C. Attorney General.
First Solicitor David Pascoe, Horry County Senator Stephen Goldfinch, and Eighth Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo took the stage.
Following a short introduction, David Stumbo concentrated on issues related to enforcement, sentencing, and the powers of prosecutors.
“We’ve got to be tough, so we need a tough prosecutor in this position to fight the fentanyl problem that was taking so many of our young lives here in South Carolina.”
“Lately, I’ve seen far too many pedophiles walking out with probation. That’s not going to happen when I’m your attorney general.” said Stumbo.
Stumbo also took a jab at Senator Stephen Goldfinch when he spoke about the structural role of the Attorney General’s office.
“If you’re going to be the chief prosecutor… you need to be a prosecutor,” said Stumbo
Senator Stephen Goldfinch reached out to us and stated, “I have been a prosecutor. I was the chief of military justice for Africom (which is a very big prosecutorial job) while on active duty, and I’m still a prosecutor in the National Guard.
1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe emphasized the results of prosecutions and the alterations in the system’s structure.
“There are some counties that have a single-digit conviction rate on child pornography,” said Pascoe
Pascoe did not cite specific counties but characterized those rates as significantly low, referring to cases where fewer than ten percent of prosecutions result in convictions.
He suggested changing the management of specific prosecution resources at the state level.
“I have a plan to take that state money, give it back to the local solicitors, and let them prosecute those cases,” Pascoe added.
Pascoe stated the source of those fundings would be S.C. state government. He stated that he preferred reallocating resources to local law firms instead of depending on centralized management.
He also called for stronger penalties.
“We are not just going to talk about going for the death penalty on child rapists… we are going to seek the death penalty on child rapists…” Pascoe stated emphatically.
BACKGROUND ON EACH CANDIDATE
David Pascoe: The Prosecutor Who Took Down a Speaker
When powerful politicians believe themselves untouchable, prosecutor 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe served as a critical reminder that the law applies equally — at least when someone is willing to enforce it. Pascoe’s pursuit of House Speaker Bobby Harrell stands as one of South Carolina’s most significant accountability moments in modern political history.
Taking Down Bobby Harrell
After 8th Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo stepped aside, Pascoe was appointed as special prosecutor in the Speaker of the SC House Bobby Harrell corruption investigation. Rather than letting the case quietly disappear, Pascoe aggressively pursued the evidence, ultimately securing Harrell’s 2014 guilty plea on six counts of misusing campaign funds [Post and Courier, 2014]. Harrell resigned the Speakership — a direct consequence of Pascoe’s refusal to treat political status as legal immunity.
A Prosecutor Built on Accountability
Pascoe has consistently championed tough, no-exceptions prosecution throughout his career. His philosophy is straightforward: criminal behavior warrants criminal consequences regardless of a defendant’s title, connections, or party affiliation. For Horry County residents frustrated by a justice system that sometimes appears to favor the well-connected, Pascoe’s record offers a counter example worth noting.
Why This Matters Locally
Horry County has seen its own struggles with political accountability. Pascoe’s willingness to pursue powerful figures demonstrates that institutional courage exists within South Carolina’s legal system — even when local prosecutors hesitate. His example creates a benchmark against which residents can measure their own elected officials.
Conclusion on David Pascoe
David Pascoe’s prosecution of Bobby Harrell wasn’t simply a legal victory — it was a statement about democratic accountability. In a state where political networks run deep, his willingness to pursue justice regardless of consequence remains a model for what principled prosecution looks like.
_________________________________
The History of Senator Stephen Goldfinch
The Controversial Political Career of S.C. Senator Stephen Goldfinch
Stephen Goldfinch has represented Horry County in the South Carolina Senate since 2013, building a career marked by legal controversies, shifting political alliances, and legislative ambitions that have kept his name in local headlines for over a decade.
Political Opportunism or Ambition?
Goldfinch has pursued office multiple times for a variety of offices, including a run consideration for Horry County Solicitor, signaling restless ambition that some constituents view as prioritizing career advancement over consistent district service. Critics argue his legislative focus has often drifted toward statewide positioning rather than addressing Horry County’s specific infrastructure and tourism-driven economy.
Last year, Goldfinch was the state’s leading senator in a failed effort to oust beloved State Treasurer Curtis Loftis. In July 2025, while launching a bid for Attorney General, Goldfinch admitted that leading the charge against Curtis Loftis—who remains popular with conservative Republican voters—was likely a “political liability rather than a political help”.
Legislative Record: Mixed Results
On policy, Goldfinch has championed coastal issues and economic development — areas genuinely relevant to Grand Strand residents. However, his record reflects inconsistency, with positions that have evolved alongside political convenience rather than principled consistency.
Conclusion on Goldfinch
For Horry County residents, Stephen Goldfinch remains a complicated political figure — locally connected yet frequently embroiled in controversy. Whether his legacy proves constructive ultimately depends on accountability measures voters choose to enforce at the ballot box.
📚 Further Reading on Goldfinch
_________________________________________
When the Prosecutor Steps Aside: David Stumbo, Bobby Harrell, and the Question of Political Justice in South Carolina
About David Stumbo
In South Carolina politics, few stories better illustrate the tangled relationship between prosecutorial discretion and political loyalty than the case surrounding former House Speaker Bobby Harrell. When 8th Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo declined to pursue criminal charges against one of the state’s most powerful Republican figures, it ignited a fierce debate about whether the justice system treats the politically connected differently than ordinary citizens — a question that remains deeply relevant to voters across the Palmetto State.
Who Was Bobby Harrell?
Bobby Harrell served as Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 2005 until his resignation in 2014, making him one of the most influential figures in state government during that period. Allegations emerged that Harrell had improperly used campaign funds for personal expenses, including payments tied to his private aircraft. These were not minor bookkeeping disputes — investigators raised concerns about a pattern of conduct that, if proven, would constitute criminal misuse of campaign finances [Post and Courier, 2014].
“Power in South Carolina has historically moved through a small network of relationships — and prosecutorial decisions rarely exist in a vacuum.
Stumbo’s Recusal and Its Aftermath
As the 8th Circuit Solicitor, Stumbo held jurisdiction over cases arising in his district. When the Harrell matter fell within reach of his office, Stumbo recused himself, citing conflicts that made independent prosecution untenable. While recusal is a legitimate legal tool designed to protect fairness, critics argued the move functioned as a shield rather than a safeguard — effectively stalling accountability for a sitting House Speaker.
The practical consequence was significant: without a willing local prosecutor, the case required special intervention. Ultimately, a special prosecutor, David Pascoe, was appointed, leading to Harrell’s guilty plea in 2014 on six counts of misusing campaign funds [Associated Press, 2014].
The Prosecutorial Discretion Problem
This episode exposes a structural vulnerability in South Carolina’s justice system. Solicitors are elected officials — meaning they are inherently political creatures operating within the same ecosystem as the lawmakers they might be asked to prosecute. Stumbo’s decision, whatever its legal justification, highlights how prosecutorial discretion can become prosecutorial protection when political relationships complicate independent judgment.
Across the country, legal scholars have long warned that elected prosecutors face impossible conflicts of interest when investigating members of their own political networks. South Carolina’s relatively small political class amplifies this problem considerably [National District Attorneys Association, ongoing].
What It Means for Accountability
The Harrell case ultimately did produce a conviction — but only because the system worked around the local solicitor rather than through him. That distinction matters enormously. For everyday South Carolinians, accountability should not depend on whether a special prosecutor is willing to step in. The randomness of that outcome is itself a form of injustice.
Stumbo’s role in this saga serves as a cautionary reminder that institutional design matters. When prosecutors are elected within the same political culture they are meant to police, the temptation — conscious or not — to protect allies can undermine the rule of law.
Conclusion on David Stumbo
The Stumbo-Harrell episode is more than a footnote in South Carolina political history. It is a case study in how power protects itself — and how accountability sometimes arrives only through extraordinary measures rather than routine justice. For voters evaluating their local elected officials, including solicitors, this story offers a pointed lesson: who prosecutes matters just as much as what is prosecuted.
📚 Further Reading
- Post and Courier — Bobby Harrell Coverage
- Associated Press — Harrell Guilty Plea, 2014
- SC State Ethics Commission
- National District Attorneys Association — Prosecutorial Standards
- SC Legislature Official Records
