Doing some simple searches on the Internet will often reveal a wealth of information on candidates. The most revealing article found came from a blog. Usually I trust blogs as much as I trust the media but in this case most of the information is verifiable. The "facts" are investigated in this section. The link to the blog article is:
SCGOP Chairman Candidates Trade Fresh Barbs
By fitsnews - on April 14, 2011

There are two points in this blog article that were worth investigating:

Investigation of point 1.
It does appear that Chad Connelly did own a political consulting company and that Bill Conner was a client. You can see a couple ethics reports by clicking here.

This does indicate that Chad Connelly did some consulting work for Bill Connor. Further clarification on this subject should be left to those involved.

Investigation of point 2.
The blog article contains some figures as to the amount of money Bill Connor raised during his campaign for Lieutenant Governor. The blog article claims that Bill Connor has been saying he raised half a million dollars. In the video area of this profile is a question on fundraising from a debate held in Lexington. In this video Bill Connor does say that he raised almost half a million dollars (about 5minutes 10 seconds into the video ). The blog article disputes this figure. The blog seems to indicate all he raised was somewhere around 322,000 minus 250,000 which would be 72,000 dollars. The figures for the final report from the SC Election Commission web site for Bill Connor are printed in the table below. Politicians have a reputation for using extreme rounding adjustments and Bill Connor definitely helps to maintain this reputation by saying he raised close to half-a-million dollars, but those who know anything about fundraising should be impressed by the numbers below. He did make a large loan to himself but that is not included in the 322,315 dollar figure shown. A visit to the South Carolina Election Commission web site does seem to indicate that these donations were mostly from small donors which makes the figures more impressive.

How can the election process be improved? Few will argue that some hope and change is needed in this area. More information might help. Information gathering in this age of Tea Party gatherings is now quite easy. Simply by bringing a camera to events put on by activist groups (in this case two Republican Women's Club debates and some Tea Party meetings) allowed a large amount of factual video to be gathered quickly by just two people. A few Internet searches can quickly uncover some facts that many voters would otherwise have not known. Just one person can easily do this.

So what information did this simple exercise yield? The following jumped out quickly:

• One candidate is likely superior with technology
• Only one candidate will likely push to close the Republican primaries to all but Republicans
• One candidate has a plan for the position that draws on campaign experience
• All three candidates are very qualified and will likely do a great job.

In my opinion the Republican Party is lucky to have three candidates of this caliber running for this position. One reasons for video taping candidates multiple times is to catch them flip-flopping on an issue. So far all evidence points to the three remaining candidates being principled candidates that won't flip-flop. Come 2012 there will likely be candidates that aren't principled and will get caught saying different things to different groups if activist groups do break out the video cameras.

In this race all three seem very qualified. I didn't know much about Bill Connor but gain respect for him each time we talk. I like that he has come out with a concrete plan that draws well on his experience. He does have a good track record as far as fund raising goes and he does seem to have strong leadership qualities. He has high name recognition as he recently ran a state-wide race which ought to help him in the position. He hasn't been a county Chairman which is a negative but likely not a huge one.His main focus seems to be on reducing the effects of consultants and money in the election process which fits in well with this position. Chad Connelly has an edge with technology and comes across as having high energy. He definitely is a people person and should translate this into good fundraising. He is qualified for the position as well. Stephen Brown has been involved with the Republican Party going way back. This means he has been around quite a while and should have good connections which hopefully will help with fundraising as well as the normal requirements of the chairman. He has run a large primary election in the past which is useful experience for this position. As discussed in the candidate comparison table now is the time to close the Republican Primaries. He is likely the only candidate to pursue this. If this is pulled off by the 2014 primary election it will literally be worth millions of dollars in campaign funds that don't need to be raised by whoever runs against Lindsey Graham in 2014. It is highly unlikely the primaries can be closed for 2012.

This project was done to test the concept of "We the People" taking more control of the process of vetting candidates. The CongressOfHope.com is thinking of working with groups to teach them how to use video cameras and to work out other details.

One bright spot that came from embarking on this project is the confirmation that there are so many good people out there. We are already seeing the positive effects of the good people standing up and making their voices heard. There haven't been many regrets. One might be that Ben Kinlaw dropped out early. I wish more people could have got to know him as he definitely deserves more recognition than he gets.

Bill Rhodes had triple by-pass heart surgery and at the writing of this had just come back home from the Hospital. He is recovering well and is not in any imminent danger according to the Doctors. He may have some comments coming.