Alvin Greene to Dems: “I Should Be Treated Like Any Other Nominee”

<a href="">ABC News</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

South Carolina’s Senate primary is drawing increasing scrutiny as officials are still struggling to explain Alvin Greene’s upset victory. But despite the mounting pressure and attacks on his campaign, Greene has adamantly refused to drop out of the race—and tells Mother Jones that he expects the Democratic Party to get behind him.

“I still need the Democratic Party’s support and leadership. I should be treated like every other nominee,” Greene said on Monday, when asked whether he had received any campaign contributions since he won the primary last week. Green added that he had “some folks helping me” with campaigning, though he declined to specify who those individuals were.

Greene, who has given an increasingly bizarre series of interviews to the national media, indicates that he’s trying to sharpen his campaign rhetoric. “I’m the best candidate in the US race for Senate,” Greene said. “Hold on, let me get this right—I’m the best candidate in the United States race in South Carolina. And let’s stop my opponent and the Republicans from reversing forward progress in South Carolina.”

When asked about the attempts by his primary opponent Vic Rawl to contest the results of the election, Greene cut me off and hung up the phone.

Earlier on Monday, Rawl filed a protest with the South Carolina Democratic Party demanding an investigation of the results. A statement from Rawl said there was “a cloud over Tuesday election,” alleging that early analysis had indicated “irregularities” and that the campaign had received reports of “extremely unusual incidents” at the polls.

“These range from voters who repeatedly pressed the screen for me only to have the other candidate’s name appear, to poll workers who had to change program cards multiple times, to at least one voter in the Republican primary who had the Democratic U.S. Senate race appear on her ballot,” Rawl said in the statement, prompting voters who had experienced problems to call the campaign’s “Election Integrity Hotline.” Rawl’s campaign also noted that there was a strange disparity between the absentee votes, who favored Rawl, and the in-person ballots, as well as long-standing troubles with South Carolina’s touch-screen voting machines. (Political scientists and electoral experts are also scratching their heads to explain Greene’s win. Check out their latest theories at fivethirtyeight and The Monkey Cage.)

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, is also planning to file a complaint on Tuesday against Greene and other candidates for failing to file requisite campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission.

Meanwhile, the accuser behind Greene’s felony obscenity charge and her mother are making good on their promise to go on the attack against the candidate, making their first broadcast TV appearance this weekend on Fox News this weekend. As TPM explains, the charge against Greene is extremely unusual—though the obscenity law is on the books across the country, it’s rarely enforced. The accuser, Camille McCoy, is a white Republican, and Greene is black—a reality that will surely prompt even more questions about South Carolina’s mystery man.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend