Democrats want to discuss Scruggs, Langston, DAGA money and Jim Hood

Louisiana Democrats are upset because Haley Barbour's PAC contributed $5000 to Louisiana Senator David Vitter's PAC. Later on, Chip Pickering's PAC contributed $5000 to Haley Pickering's PAC. The Democrats claim this was Pickering trying to secretly give to Vitter.

The problem with this is the FEC, which governs these issues, has a long standing "first in - first out" rule which means the contribution from Barbour actually represents money given to him maybe months or years ago. One day Barbour will certainly spend or contribute that Pickering money, but it wasn't that day, and it won't be tomorrow.

But here is where it gets good. The Mississippi Democrats decided to jump on and try to play politics on this issue.

Mississippi Democrats do not have clean hands when it comes to campaign finance issues, as Majority In Mississippi helpfully reminded us. They asked, "Do Democrats Really Want To Talk About Campaign Contributions?" describing the allegation that now convicted felons Dickie Scruggs and Joey Langston funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars through the Democratic Attorneys General Association to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood in 2007.

Now the Mississippi Democrats have responded, "Yes, we want the conversation on campaign finance" and said "two attorneys making donations to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, which then in turn donated money to Attorney Jim Hood’s re-election campaign in 2007...in no way violated any campaign finance laws."

So now, let's discuss.

Let's recall this post by Y'all Politics which points out that the hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in the allegation involving Dickie Scruggs, Joey Langston, and DAGA came within 90 days of Attorney General Jim Hood sending his letter listing Scruggs as a "confidential informant" and asking that to be taken into consideration in a criminal contempt investigation against Scruggs. To which Alan Lange says:

Let’s pretend that we are a “confidential informant” in an investigation. Does it make sense that we, in a middle of an investigation, would funnel A HUGE AMOUNT of money to the prosecutor in that case? This doesn’t pass the straight face test.

Let’s pretend we are now the “prosecutor” - Jim Hood. Would a prosecutor under normal circumstances accept $400K of money that you know has come from “confidential informants” funnelled through a shell 527 group?

MEMO to Mississippi Democrats, this issue goes much further than campaign finance laws. Let's discuss some more.