South Carolina’s governor race has settled on one issue above the rest: affordability. Alan Wilson and Jermaine Johnson are both telling voters they can ease the pressure of rising costs, but they are offering very different paths to get there.
That fight is showing up now because the price of groceries and other basic expenses has become a daily concern for voters. In May, Scott Huffmon said people in South Carolina were struggling with increased costs just trying to make ends meet, and a recent Winthrop Poll found that 67% of residents say groceries are difficult to afford.
Wilson, the Republican nominee and South Carolina’s four-term attorney general, said in April that his top goal would be making the economy more affordable for South Carolina families. His answer is built around eliminating the state income tax and reducing property taxes, a pitch that would leave the state with less revenue from wages and more pressure to make up the difference elsewhere. Woods Wooten said on July 6 that every policy in Wilson’s campaign starts with the question of whether it will make life more affordable, and added that the plan includes fixing Act 388, cutting government waste through the Families First Audit Initiative, lowering insurance costs through tort reform and expanding affordable, reliable energy production.
Johnson is pushing a different version of the same promise. The Democratic nominee, who has represented Richland County in the state House since 2020, said his plan would take 70% of state income taxpayers off the rolls and reduce the property tax. On June 3, he said in a Democratic gubernatorial debate that a livable minimum wage would help address affordability. In a July 7 text exchange, Johnson said South Carolina families are feeling the affordability crisis every day and said his campaign is focused on lowering the cost of living by advancing the South Carolina Resource Independence and Resilience Act, supporting a livable minimum wage, holding insurance companies accountable to bring premiums down and providing meaningful tax relief for small businesses.
The clash matters because both campaigns are meeting the same problem with opposite tools. One is betting that smaller government and lower taxes will leave families with more money to spend. The other is arguing that wages, insurance and targeted tax relief all have to move together if families are going to feel any real relief. What neither side has answered is how much their plans would change what South Carolina households actually pay, or how the state would absorb the loss of revenue if the income tax disappears.
For now, the race is not just about who can talk most convincingly about the cost of living. It is about which candidate can persuade voters that their version of affordability would arrive soon enough, and spread far enough, to matter in daily life.
