UPDATED - SC1: Mark Sanford to John Kuhn: You're 'Making Things Up'

Note: This story has been updated to include John Kuhn's response to the demand by the campaign of Mark Sanford

There are less than two weeks until primary election day for the First Congressional District seat and the rhetoric has been ratcheted up another notch.

The campaigns of Mark Sanford and John Kuhn have spent the last two days trading shots over the former governor's record.

The dispute began yesterday when Kuhn, who was a one-term state Senator while Sanford was governor, called Sanford's claims about his budgeting prowess "disingenuous." Kuhn said that while Sanford was governor:

• The total state budget expanded from $15.5 billion in FY 2003 to $21.1 billion in FY 2011 - an increase of 36 percent.
• The Department of Health and Human Services overspent by $222 million the last year he was in office.
• Sanford’s Department of Corrections overspent by $77 million during his time in office.

Kuhn also released his third television commercial, which slammed Sanford's record. See attached video.

On Wednesday, the Sanford campaign fired back. A press release called Kuhn's ads “desperate and intentionally misleading” and asked Kuhn to take the ad down.

Sanford's campaign also addressed Kuhn's criticisms head-on. It said:

• Kuhn cites H3899 from 2003 as a bill Governor Sanford supported, costing taxpayers $250 million. In fact, the bill never actually passed, which means Kuhn’s claim of taxpayer cost is false. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess115_2003-2004/bills/3899.htm

• Kuhn’s ad says H3899 was the “Life Sciences Act,” when in fact, it wasn’t. The Life Sciences Act, S.560, which passed the following year, was vetoed by Governor Sanford.

• Not only did Governor Sanford veto it, he sided against the General Assembly in an SC Supreme Court case, where the Court ultimately backed Governor Sanford’s position that the bill was unconstitutional.

• Not only did he veto it and fight the bill all the way to the SC Supreme Court, but in his veto message, Governor Sanford SPECIFICALLY CITED (caps in original) provisions from H3899 that were later included in the Life Sciences bill as reasons for his veto. The Senate Journal from the veto override includes Gov. Sanford’s veto message: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess115_2003-2004/sj04/20040317.htm

According to Sanford's spokesman Joel Sawyer, the bill Kuhn references never passed and when a similar one did, Sanford vetoed it. Sawyer added that Kuhn was a candidate who was "willing to just make things up."

Kuhn responded:

“Governor Sanford's accusations of deception are highly ironic, considering his history of lying to the people of the State of South Carolina. Mark Sanford's response to our campaign’s television ad only addresses his actions in 2004. Our ad is about my successful filibuster in 2003 and subsequent opposition to the bill when it was re-introduced in 2004.
I was a member of the South Carolina Senate in 2003 when I successfully filibustered H3899. Mark Sanford supported that bill. Furthermore, the Governor did not support my filibuster. I personally approached Mark Sanford and asked for support of my opposition to the borrowing bill, and he refused. Our former Governor is simply attempting to revise history yet again.
In 2004, the bill (H3899) was repackaged with a Life Sciences Bill (S560) and a Venture Capital Investment Act (H3900). Sen. Larry Grooms and Rep. Chip Limehouse sponsored the repackaged bill. I voted against it, but it passed anyway.When vetoing that bill- the second bill in 2004- Governor Sanford released a statement that he disapproved of bobtailing, referring to the fact that it’s a Life Science Bill with a borrowing element tacked on to it. He did not mention the borrowing itself as a problem, only the ‘complex policy considerations’ involved in tacking legislation together.
I disapproved of the borrowing in 2003 and in 2004. Unlike my opponent Mark Sanford, and my other opponents in this race, I stand up for the taxpayer at all times.”

Though no polls have been made public, Kuhn is thought to be back in the pack and his criticisms of Sanford--thought by most to be the favorite to win back the seat he once held--could be a maneuver to draw attention to his campaign.

Keep up with all of Patch's coverage of South Carolina politics by following us on Facebook HERE and Twitter HERE.