By Staff Writer
A South Carolina attorney general candidate has accused a network of trial lawyers, political operatives and anonymous social media accounts of coordinating dark money campaigns and influence operations aimed at preserving the state’s existing legal and political power structures. The campaign’s detailed allegations link a local nonprofit called SC Integrity Watch, independent expenditure activity in recent state races, and federal inquiries into conduct during last year’s tort reform debate.
The candidate says SC Integrity Watch which the campaign describes as primarily funded by trial lawyers launched a coordinated digital and paid media effort after the candidate pledged to investigate alleged corruption connected to last year’s tort reform fight. The campaign alleges that the same anonymous Twitter accounts that targeted legislative leaders during the tort reform debate have since targeted the candidate’s campaign, repeating identical talking points and amplifying one another to manufacture the appearance of broad opposition. These claims are detailed in campaign statements and public posts from the candidate.
The campaign alleges ties between political operative Chris Slick and independent expenditures in the 2024 state Senate campaign of Sen. Matt Leber, including that Slick left the country after an FBI investigation into tort‑reform–related allegations became public. The campaign also alleges that notable trial lawyer Peter Protopapas made a $25,000 personal payment to Leber and that Protopapas is a major funder of anti‑candidate advertising. The campaign says Protopapas serves on the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and benefits financially from the asbestos docket. Those allegations are included in the candidate’s statements and campaign materials.
What reporting and public records show.
SC Integrity Watch is a political advocacy organization that has engaged in public campaigns around judicial and legislative issues in South Carolina. Local reporting has documented its activity in state political debates and noted funding and messaging around judicial selection and tort related policy fights.
Media reporting shows the FBI has probed conduct related to South Carolina’s tort reform debate; reporting has referenced questions raised on the Senate floor by Sen. Tom Fernandez and subsequent federal scrutiny. These reports indicate that what was raised during legislative debate later attracted federal attention, though specifics of any investigation and any targets have not been publicly disclosed in full.
Independent expenditure spending and digital ad activity in recent state races are publicly tracked through campaign finance filings and ad‑transparency tools. Reporting on the 2024 state Senate contests noted significant outside spending and coordinated messaging in several races, although the degree of direct coordination between donors, operatives and social media networks is often difficult to prove from publicly available records alone.
Public campaign finance filings show contributions and certain expenditures by named individuals and entities; however, establishing that a specific donor financed particular anonymous social media activity requires additional evidence beyond contribution records. Reporting to date has connected contributions from lawyers and related groups to outside spending in state races but has not published definitive proof publicly tying those donors to every asserted online operation.
Responses and denials.
Representatives of SC Integrity Watch, Mr. Protopapas, and Mr. Slick did not provide documents in the public record directly confirming the campaign’s specific characterizations in time for publication; where available, spokespeople have sometimes disputed assertions about coordination or the sources of funding. News outlets that have sought comment from the named individuals and groups report either denials, limited responses, or no public reply.
Sen. Matt Leber has publicly stated positions opposing the tort reform measures referenced and has addressed reporting about campaign contributions; reporting includes his public responses and, in some cases, statements from his campaign.
Direct, publicly available proof that the same anonymous Twitter accounts were orchestrated by a single group acting on behalf of specific donors has not been established in public records cited by major news outlets. Attribution of anonymous digital accounts requires platform cooperation or forensic analysis that has not been fully disclosed in reporting.
Details of the FBI inquiry remain limited in public reporting; federal investigations are often sealed or undisclosed until authorities announce charges or close inquiries. Reporting so far indicates federal interest tied to the tort reform episode but does not list formal indictments or prosecutions linked to the public allegations.
The allegations raise questions about transparency in political spending, the influence of sector specific legal markets such as asbestos litigation on policy and elections, and the use of anonymous social media networks and outside spending to shape local legislative outcomes. Campaign finance experts and journalists note that dark money influence and digital amplification tactics have been points of contention in state politics nationwide; South Carolina’s debates reflect those broader concerns.
The candidate has pledged that, if elected attorney general, they will open investigations into the conduct surrounding the tort reform debate and any related influence operations, saying such inquiries will be pursued methodically and without regard to who is involved. The pledge and surrounding campaign rhetoric frame the matter as a central theme of the candidate’s platform.
Documentary and public record steps for readers.
Campaign finance filings, independent expenditure disclosures, and state ethics filings are public records and can be consulted for amounts and timing of spending. Federal investigation details, if and when unsealed, typically appear in court filings or formal announcements from the Department of Justice. Ad‑transparency libraries and social media platform transparency reports can sometimes reveal buyers of political ads and promoted content.
This article summarizes public reporting, campaign statements, and available public records through local news coverage and campaign materials. Several of the campaign’s strongest allegations direct orchestration of anonymous accounts, explicit quid pro quo arrangements, and the full identity of dark money funders behind specific online operations remain matters of contested claim or limited public disclosure; they are described here as the campaign has presented them and where reporting has corroborated elements, and otherwise noted as unverified.
