Conway’s Former Senate Candidate Ordered to Pay $76,000 in Frivolous Defamation Case

Conway’s Former Senate Candidate Faces Legal Blow Over Defamation Lawsuit

CONWAY — **John Gallman**, a former candidate for the South Carolina Senate, has been ordered to pay over **$76,000** to a local newspaper for legal fees after a judge ruled his defamation lawsuit against the publication was **frivolous**. The decision, announced on **December 16, 2024**, comes four years after Gallman’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat incumbent state Senator **Luke Rankin**.

Background of the Case

The controversy began when Gallman filed suit against **Waccamaw Publishers**, the parent company of the **Myrtle Beach Herald**, claiming the newspaper’s reports during his 2020 campaign were **defamatory**. He alleged the articles portrayed him as **mentally unstable** and **physically abusive** towards his ex-wife. Gallman’s legal battles can be traced back to the pre-primary runoff period in 2020, where he faced Rankin in a tightly contested race.

In the lawsuit, Gallman accused reporter **Christian Boschult**, who covered his campaign at that time, of ruining his reputation through the articles that cited allegations involving domestic issues from his **divorce** proceedings. Boschult is now a reporter at another major publication.

The Court’s Ruling

Facing Gallman’s claims, Circuit Judge **J. Cordell Maddox Jr.** stated that the newspaper’s coverage was a fair report of **public records**, which included details from Gallman’s family court files. Judge Maddox’s ruling emphasized that the article’s content was not only accurate but also rooted in publicly accessible documents, substantiating the newspaper’s defense against the allegations.

“In a democracy, voters need to know what lies behind a politician’s public statements,” said **Jay Bender**, the attorney representing Waccamaw Publishers. Bender has a longstanding career in media law, emphasizing that reports on public figures must rely on factual, verifiable sources to ensure transparency for voters.

Gallman’s Legal Journey

Gallman was not charged with any crime following the allegations detailed in the media coverage surrounding his divorce, which painted a troubling picture of his personal conduct, such as claims of dragging his former spouse by her hair and breaking her finger. Despite the absence of criminal charges, the damaging nature of these accusations contributed to his electoral defeat.

After losing the race, Gallman’s legal troubles did not end. He sued multiple defendants, including Rankin and several other individuals, alleging civil conspiracy and libel. Up until the judge’s latest ruling, Gallman had sought damages for what he alleged was reputational harm that also impacted his financial stability and career as a financial advisor.

Judge’s Sanctions and Statements

The judge not only dismissed Gallman’s claims but also imposed sanctions on both Gallman and his legal counsel, **Tucker Player**, for pursuing what was labeled as a **baseless** lawsuit. The court concluded that Gallman had prior knowledge that the allegations reported by the newspaper could be verified through his unsealed family court records.

“The burden that frivolous lawsuits place on the judicial system should not be underestimated,” Bender remarked, referring to the implications of Gallman’s lawsuit on judicial resources and taxpayer money.

Aftermath and Reactions

Following the ruling, Gallman can still appeal the decision, but the likelihood of success appears slim given the substantial evidence against his claims. Meanwhile, the **Robertson family**, who owns Waccamaw Publishers, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing their commitment to accurate and ethical reporting.

As this legal saga unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the critical role that journalism plays in democratic processes, where informed electorates are essential for holding public figures accountable. The ruling from Judge Maddox not only highlights the importance of accountability but also affirms the necessity of protecting the **freedoms of the press** against unfounded legal challenges.