As far as I know, Gov. Mark Sanford is the only governor who has been vocally opposed to the $700 billion bailout. Check out this great letter that he wrote to Paulson.

November 7, 2008

The Honorable Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Mr. Secretary,

As you enter the closing chapter of your work as Treasury secretary I wish you well. You have certainly held that post in the most tumultuous of financial times and accordingly I hope that you take time for a break in the New Year.

I write to let you know of an unintended consequence that seems to be surfacing in local banks. I've gotten several reports from board members of community banks whose balance sheets were strong and their credit good - who nonetheless would be eligible for "their" portion of the $700 billion bailout. So-called free money going to local banks I think is a real problem for taxpayers.

More egregious is the way that some banks are gaming the system.

In the free market model that we both believe in, if a firm takes unwarranted risk and fails, many in that firm who in fact did good work and added to the bottom line become casualties to the process. It is tough medicine but necessary to temper the excess capacity that would come without it. That's why I think it's unconscionable that someone affiliated with a bank like Citibank would be receiving a $125 million bonus as reported in the Wall Street Journal of November 6. Why employees under the Citibank umbrella should be immune from this dynamic while taking federal money I don't understand, but in fairness to you what I read may not represent the whole of what's taken place.

I have a much stronger grasp of what is happening locally. The federal government, and by extension taxpayers, are being gamed. I think it's dangerous over the long run the way that taxpayers are being sapped, and this dynamic is playing out in South Carolina.

In early September, the CEO of South Carolina-based South Financial Group, Mack Whittle, announced his pending retirement and the $18 million golden parachute that came with it. Most recently, however, the bank moved up his retirement by two months, and many have surmised it was done so the bank could apply for federal money tied to the $700 billion bailout without disallowing Whittle's golden parachute. I applaud the fact that you have placed limitations on executive compensation for those receiving federal money, but you need to be aware of how these limitations are being circumvented.

I'd appreciate you looking into this and seeing if there is anything that can be done to keep each one of the taxpayers I represent from in essence having this $18 million, or other millions like it, plucked from their respective pocketbooks and wallets.

In the meantime please know that I wish you well in life's next chapter, and I hope our paths cross again in the not too distant future.

Sincerely,

Mark Sanford