Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Candidates › SC-01 race › 2025–2026
RepublicanU.S. House, SC-01South Carolina
Served in Congress 1995–2019
9 priorities from marksanford.com, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
Indeed this campaign is centrally focused on our federal government’s disastrous financial path, and my mission if elected is to change it. Like no other issue confronting our nation, our government’s debt and deficits have the capacity to upend American life. We are now at a financial tipping point and our ability to sustain the American Dream hangs in the balance. Every year Washington demands more, takes more and borrows more. In so doing, opportunity is thwarted as the government demands more of what we have every year. I believe that the economist Milton Friedman was on to something when he said that the ultimate measure of government is what it spent. This campaign’s focus on our nation’s debt and its spending is key to restoring the sustainability and affordability of the American Dream.
People used to believe that their children and grandchildren would have life better than they did, yet Americans today question that premise. Along with the belief in ever rising levels of opportunity, another tenant of the American dream was this notion of fairness – the harder we worked the luckier we got. Yet how can a system be fair when each year our nation runs trillions in deficits? A deficit is nothing more than a deferred tax and right now our nation is handing those bills to my sons and grandchild. Our country was in part founded on the notion of no taxation without representation. And our present course is not that, and young people will particularly suffer if there is no change to Washington’s reckless financial ways.
Finally to live your version of the American dream, you must be able to afford it. Again, we see the cancerous effects of our nation’s debt and deficits in a host of basics becoming less and less affordable. A tangible way of thinking about this is to look at home ownership in this county. Today the average average US homebuyer is 59. Just 15 years ago it was 39. For many young people today forced to live at home, they feel this change just as they do in the costs of the basics of life inflating every day and becoming more unaffordable. In short, our federal government’s finances go straight to the issue of each one of us being able to afford our vision of the American Dream. It also goes to the heart of our country’s longevity and its ability to meet its promises to each one of us.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
Mark has taken a lot of tough stands on all the issues that matter over the years. Consequently you don’t have to hope that he delivers on a promise, or guess as to how he might vote, because he has a remarkably solid conservative record. When we say remarkably solid, we mean remarkably solid. On this you can Google, Chat GPT or just talk to a neighbor as you look for yourself at his past stands and votes. It’s out there, but if you have any questions on his past votes or stands, please feel free to call us at 843-608-1469 and we will try and get you further clarification.
Sustaining the promises that are embedded in any issue important to important to us in South Carolina rests on being able to pay for it, and this is where we run into a profound problem that’s not being talked about, or addressed, in Washington – the way in which all issues come back to the reality that interest on the national debt is growing faster than our economy. Federal interest costs will crowd out other necessities of government. Federal interest cost is our fastest growing category of government. Erskin Bowles, of the Bowles Simpson Commission (that was erected to find a way out of our financial morass, but as so many commissions do, got nowhere) called what is coming “the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man.”
Enough of this…let’s go ahead and dig into a sampling of just a few issues. But they all circle right back to how we pay for them, and consequently our immense financial challenges at the federal level.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
The trust fund will be depleted in 5.5 years, and the fund will be able to pay only 75 percent of benefits without a change. Mark saw this coming 20 years ago and proposed a system of personalized accounts that would give each one of us ownership so that the federal government could not take Social Security from us. The lie in Washington was that everything was “fine” and it underscores how so many things dear to us in the lowcountry will be affected if we don’t get Washington’s numbers straightened out.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
Mark doesn’t just talk about a host of conservative remedies here, he has a vote record that shows it. Many of his efforts have been built around restoring the direct doctor patient relationship that was largely lost with the wage and price controls of World War Two. There are also a host of federal programs that directly affect South Carolina. Take for instance Medicare. The trust fund here has one more year than Social Security, and this is hardly a consolation prize as it therefore goes bankrupt in 6.5 years. Mark is 66 and hopes he will still be around, but unfortunately this means it will affect him – as it will so many others. When Congress was debating the passage of Obamacare, Mark offered the Republican House alternative that was very much in keeping with his long held efforts to move healthcare away from government control and toward patient choice. Paying for any of this once again begs the larger question of our nation’s finances and the importance of getting them in order.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, when asked the greatest threat to national security replied, the national debt. Paul Kennedy in his book, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, showed how economic supremacy was always the precursor to military supremacy. You can’t have one without the other, and our rising debt load is robbing us of our ability to pay for our military. Mark warned of this years ago, and sadly he was vindicated in his predictions. We now spend as much on interest payments on our national debt as we do on defense. Even more alarming is the way interest costs are predicted to far exceed defense spending.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
Mark has always seen this as a simple rule of law issue. As a country we can’t enforce some laws and then look the other way as still others break them. To do that is to make a mockery of the idea of equal justice under the law. At a practical level he has always believed that control of one’s border is basic to national sovereignty. Along with consistently voting against varying forms of amnesty, Mark didn’t just talk about enforcement—his administration in South Carolina passed one of the toughest laws in the country and required E-Verify before it was politically fashionable. But once again, this points to the need to get Washington’s budget mess right so that we can afford and pay for priorities like this.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
While state and local governments fund most of education’s cost, the federal government is disproportionate in its mandates for schools and teachers. Mark has long believed in the importance of doing the reverse and empowering teachers in the classroom and local communities. Accordingly, his administration in South Carolina passed one of the first statewide, independent charter bills in the country, shifting power to parents and educators. Again given its costs, and regardless of one’s views on education, you have to ask how we fund it. This again drives us back to the sustainability of our federal spending.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
Mark’s record on the environment and conservation is unique and remarkable. His view has always fit with former President Teddy Roosevelt’s who as a Republican is credited with the start of the National Park system. Mark has long believed that being conservative should apply to natural resources as well as financial resources. It’s the reason, as Governor, his administration protected over 250,000 acres, more land than during any previous governorship in South Carolina history. It’s the reason that as some wanted to cancel funding for the conservation bank, his administration fought successfully to preserve it. It’s the reason his administration led efforts against offshore drilling off the coast of South Carolina.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
As a South Carolina resident, Mark sees every day how choked our roadways have become. For this reason, he fought the status quo that leads to four lane roads in the middle of nowhere, while growth areas are tangled in traffic. While he was governor he worked hard to reform our system to get dollars to where they were needed and this was the basis of his elevating transportation to a cabinet level position. It was also the basis of his work in Congress to move South Carolina from being a donor state in sending highway dollars to Washington. His efforts to get into the weeds here are demonstrated in his offering the authorizing language in the Water Resources Bill that led to the federal commitment for the Charleston Harbor deepening from 45 to 52 feet. Once again, the question going forward will be how do we pay for these things as our federal budget is increasingly strained in paying ever growing interest costs, and the transportation funding formula was changed in 2021 to include yet more borrowing.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · marksanford.com/issues
Heading as listed on marksanford.com/issues ↗ (opens marksanford.com/issues at this heading)
Matching this candidate against the House and Senate voting records…
No sponsored measures on record
FEC filings, Jan 1, 2025 to Sep 30, 2026 · Official FEC bulk data · committee C00285254
$3.85 has been spent for every dollar raised across 8 reports ($1.4M of $354.6K). Cash on hand went from $1.3M on Mar 31, 2025 to $311.9K on Sep 30, 2026.
| Report | Raised in the period | Spent in the period | Cash on hand at its close |
|---|---|---|---|
| APRIL QUARTERLY 2025 through Mar 31, 2025 | $0 | $1,585 | $1,321,918 |
| JULY QUARTERLY 2025 through Jun 30, 2025 | $0 | $16,963 | $1,304,956 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2025 through Sep 30, 2025 | $0 | $129 | $1,304,826 |
| YEAR-END 2025 through Dec 31, 2025 | $67,140 | $137 | $1,371,829 |
| APRIL QUARTERLY 2026 through Mar 31, 2026 | $125,331 | $3,617 | $1,493,542 |
| JULY QUARTERLY 2026 through Jun 30, 2026 | $13,767 | $150,705 | $1,356,604 |
| PRE-PRIMARY 2026 through Jul 22, 2026 | $0 | $4,000 | $1,352,604 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2026 through Sep 30, 2026 | $148,325 | $1,189,029 | $311,900 |
Each report’s own period, as filed with the FEC; a report filed again counts once, as its latest copy.
No endorsements page
Not yet called · 100% reporting · Full results ↗
Every contest for this seat that named this candidate, most recent last; a result is shown once the race is called. Election dates and results from civicAPI (civicapi.org). civicAPI aggregates results from Secretaries of State and equivalent election bodies, and makes its own race calls. civicapi.org ↗
The FEC counts someone as a candidate once they raise or spend more than $5,000.
Official FEC filing record for the current cycle. The priorities they publish are quoted from their own site, in their order.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the campaign’s; the record marking is ours.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 12 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $13.3K.
The largest of the committees is listed. In all, 1 committee contribution was filed this cycle, totaling $1K. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total the campaign itself reports.
Total reported receipts $354,562
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. Open a source marked + to see who gave. FEC filings through Sep 30, 2026.
Loading the map
Tap or hover over a state, or focus the map and use the arrow keys, to read its total. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.
51% of the money placed by state came from inside South Carolina: $6.8K of $13.3K.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 6 contributions · 51% | $6,750 |
| 1 contribution · 26% | $3,500 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.8% | $500 |
| 1 contribution · 1.9% | $250 |
| 1 contribution · 1.9% | $250 |
By the state each donor wrote on the filing, across 7 states and territories. Donors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized, so they cannot be placed on a map. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an employer · 4 contributions · 40% of ranked | $5,250 |
| 1 contribution · 26% of ranked | $3,500 |
| Written instead of an employer · 2 contributions · 9.4% of ranked | $1,250 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% of ranked | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% of ranked | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.8% of ranked | $500 |
| 1 contribution · 3.8% of ranked | $500 |
| 1 contribution · 1.9% of ranked | $250 |
Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($2,725) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Money groups spent on their own, not through a campaign. Each ad is filed against the candidate it names, so money attacking an opponent shows on the opponent’s row. Open a candidate to see who spent it.
The campaign also refunded $1,257 in contributions, which the categories below do not include.
Total itemized disbursements $176,670
Every itemized payment the committee reported this cycle, sorted by what it said each one was for. The categories are ours; the wording they are matched against is the committee’s own. Open a category to read the filed descriptions and who was paid. FEC filings through Sep 30, 2026.
All 29 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2 payments · 8.8% of all spending | $120,000 |
| 3 payments · 1.5% of all spending | $20,756 |
| 1 payment · 0.5% of all spending | $7,500 |
| 1 payment · 0.5% of all spending | $7,500 |
| 1 payment · 0.5% of all spending | $6,500 |
| 1 payment · 0.3% of all spending | $4,469 |
| 1 payment · 0.3% of all spending | $4,000 |
| 1 payment · 0.2% of all spending | $2,289 |
The people, firms and committees paid the most, across every kind of payment. Each share is of everything the committee reported spending this cycle, not only the itemized payments above. A payee that is itself a committee links to its own profile.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 4 contributions · 40% of ranked | $5,250 |
| 1 contribution · 26% of ranked | $3,500 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% of ranked | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% of ranked | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.5% of ranked | $1,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.8% of ranked | $500 |
| 1 contribution · 3.8% of ranked | $500 |
| 1 contribution · 1.9% of ranked | $250 |
Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($2,725) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.