Published: February 13, 2008 12:46 am            

Hood’s campaign finance ‘mea culpa’ seems a little contrived

There's no doubt that Attorney General Jim Hood is reading Mississippi's political tea leaves correctly - but his timing on making that assessment is more than a little suspect.

Hood's right when he suggests that he's catching some heavy flak from Mississippi voters over his past political alliances with wealthy trial lawyers who have recently either been accused of judicial bribery or entered guilty pleas to such charges.

On Monday, Hood said in a press release touting a list of campaign finance reform he's backing: "Despite the recent attacks on my character and innuendo about my honesty in regard to the campaign contributions which I have accepted, I am the only current statewide elected official who has consistently called for meaningful campaign finance reforms.

"Since my election in 2003, I have always sought these changes," said Hood. "Rather than level attacks at me for following the law as it exists presently, my critics would be better advised to join me in pushing for these reforms."

Hood parses the language of his claim - "the only current statewide elected official" - to seek campaign finance reform. Hood can make that claim with a straight face, but only by about six weeks.

Former Secretary of State Eric Clark was a longtime champion of campaign finance reform before he stepped down as has been state Supreme Court Chief Justice Jim Smith and a number of others, but Smith doesn't run statewide.

Give Hood his due - he has paid prior lip service to wanting campaign finance reform. But lacking the ability to provide any leadership toward getting those reforms enacted, Hood went about his merry way engaging in some of the campaign finance practices he said Monday should be remedied.

Hood called for the following campaign finance reforms:

•Contributions sent through a political action committee at the candidate's direction should be considered direct donations to the candidate and be reportable as such.

•Disclosure of sources giving to "soft money" political advertising by special interest groups.

•Candidates should disclose the name of any individual offering loans or extending credit and be required to report how the money was used.

•Electronic reporting of donations and expenditures by state candidates that exceeded $75,000 in a calendar year.

All of those proposed reforms are sound reforms that should be enacted. Hood has an excellent grasp of some of the most frequent campaign finance abuses.

But as to criticism of Hood's own campaign finances, is he really shocked that the voters would raise their eyebrows?

Hood got $44,000 in direct campaign contributions from Oxford attorney Richard "Dickie' Scruggs, currently facing federal judicial bribery charges in Mississippi. Scruggs also gave $300,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

Booneville attorney Joey Langston gave Hood over $100,000 in direct campaign contributions and $100,000 to the DAGA.

In 2007, Hood got $400,000 for his campaign from DAGA in the same year that Langston and Scruggs gave DAGA $400,000.

As Hood said, he has been "following the law as it exists presently" and there exists no evidence that any of the Scruggs or Langston contributions were obtained illegally.

But Hood's close political and legal ties to Scruggs and Langston are ties of Hood's own choosing. Attempts to distance himself from Scruggs and Langston at this late date seem at best contrived.

Campaign finance reform should be a nonpartisan issue. But Hood's efforts to change the political subject when he's under significant fire himself aren't the ideal circumstances in which campaign finance reform legislation of this nature can best succeed.



Contact Sid Salter at (601) 961-7084 or e-mail ssalter@clarionledger.com. Visit his blog at http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/

blogs/ssalter/sidblog.html.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.