Hood's contracts to donors under scrutiny

The Clarion Ledger did a bang-up job on this article "Election donors under scrutiny." Here is the good part.

Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood accepted $75,000 in 2007 from a Texas attorney poised to earn a paycheck if the state is successful in its case against drug companies, according to a review of campaign finance records.

Hood's opponent pointed to a $14 million legal fee given to an attorney who was one of his biggest campaign contributors. The money was negotiated and given to Joey Langston of Booneville and other lawyers after Langston helped win a $100 million settlement for the state in a MCI tax settlement case.

Langston gave a $100,000 contribution to Hood and a similar amount to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, which then contributed to Hood. Langston is now serving prison time in a judicial bribery scandal unrelated to the MCI case and has been disbarred.

Texas lawyer F. Kenneth Bailey has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to attorneys general across the country, including Hood. A pharmaceutical company is asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to toss Bailey from a case there because he repeatedly donated to the state's Democratic governor, whose office hired him in a no-bid contract.

Bailey also made separate contributions of $50,000 and $25,000 to Hood in 2007. He contributed even more to the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

Bailey is serving as associate counsel to Jackson lawyer William Quin in Mississippi's case against pharmaceutical companies. Quin signed an agreement with the state in 2008 to work as outside counsel.

Quin was hired "in an effort to stop big drug companies from defrauding our state Medicaid program through the unapproved use of certain drugs," Hood said in a statement issued through his spokeswoman.

Hood said outside counsel is hired "when special expertise is necessary to take legal action against those who would harm our citizens. Outside counsel is hired according to state law and strict retention guidelines."

Now the weird part. It is as if the Clarion Ledger would not do this article about Hood unless they could also hit a Republican, like Haley Barbour. Lets look at the two cases.

Barbour got campaign contributions.
Hood got campaign contributions.

Contributors got contracts from the state (Barbour oversees MDA for example).
Contributors got contracts from Hood.

Barbour's contracts were won through a competitive bid process.
Hood's contracts were no-bid contracts; he picked who to give them to.

The fact that people who do business with the state also make contributions is not a problem. Or in the words of Barbour spokesman Dan Turner, "Making a campaign contribution doesn't prevent you from doing business with the state." The problem comes when campaign contributors get a secret, no-bid contract, like Hood's friends.

It was a great article. Right of Mississippi looked at some of the Hood material on Thursday and reminded us that Hood believes these contracts are "First come, first served." Also, the Wall Street Journal editorialized on this, too.

It is unfortunate that the Clarion Ledger would try to equivocate established contract bidding, with secret no-bid contracts, as if they were the same thing and should face the scrutiny. There may be a story to the Barbour contracts and the Ledger should certainly explore it. But it shouldn't run the Hood and Barbour stories together as if they are the same thing.