Reddy or Not

So you thought you were following a nonprofit government watchdog group, DOGE SC?

Think again.

You’re now following a campaign for governor, featuring the group’s founder himself, Rom Reddy. Convenient timing for a newly filed candidate to suddenly have 34,000 followers overnight.

Reddy’s run may not come as a surprise. But it is notable that a candidate branding himself as “something different” has previously donated thousands to the very politicians many believe have kept South Carolina stuck in the same cycle.

SC Confidential took a closer look at those records. You can read the full article here:

https://www.sc-confidential.com/sc-statehouse/doge-sc-just-how-revolutionary-is-it

As Reddy himself once said, asking tough questions is a civic duty. So we will continue to ask them, with or without his cooperation.

Yesterday, Reddy said he first considered running for governor one month ago. But Facebook’s page transparency records show the account now known as DOGE SC was originally created as “Reddy for Governor” in August 2024.

So which is it?

SC Confidential reported that Reddy was planning to run for governor two months ago. Political insiders and legislators knew this.

The issue isn’t when he considered running. It’s what happened to the platform.

If a following was built using PAC resources and later converted into a personal campaign page, that raises serious questions about how those assets were built, transferred, and whether proper disclosures were followed.

For someone who built a brand on demanding transparency, this is a questionable way to launch a campaign. Because if the timeline doesn’t add up on day one… what else doesn’t?

Reddy has continued to dodge questions while making claims that don’t hold up.

After FitsNews shared my post on X, Reddy claimed that changing a page name “changes it historically.” His campaign strategist and others echoing that the same line. However, that’s not accurate.

As demonstrated by Stephen Goldfinch’s page history, name changes do not retroactively alter a page’s original creation details.

When presented with that evidence, there was no factual rebuttal—only personal attacks and attempts to dismiss the issue as “Facebook conspiracy theories.” Even FitsNews labeled this a “spat.” That’s an interesting choice for an outlet that claims neutrality while reporter Dylan Nolan has transitioned to serve as Reddy’s communications director.

The campaign has since shifted its explanation, stating that “DOGE SC was a committee” and that “the campaign bought the assets,” calling it “totally legal.”

Does that sound like an outsider?

Let’s be clear: the issue isn’t early preparation - it’s consistency and transparency. If a platform built under one purpose was later repurposed into a personal campaign, voters deserve a clear and direct explanation.

Deflection, insults, and minimizing the issue don’t change that. When the facts can’t be refuted, the tactic is to discredit the person asking the questions.

But the questions remain. And voters deserve answers.