Federal Court Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional, Jim Hood had said "unlikely"

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked if Obamacare was constitutional, she could not believe the reporter was serious. Her office went on the record as saying, "That is not a serious question."

When Attorney General Jim Hood was asked to file a lawsuit on behalf of Mississippi against Obamacare, he said back in April of this year it was unlikely a court would find Obamacare beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause:

Given the extremely broad scope of Congress's commerce power under existing case law from the last sixty years, it is unlikely the a court would find the Act with its regulated activity of healthcare and health insurance to be beyond that authority....After hours of research, the consultation with constitutional law scholars, and a review of actions of other states' Attorneys General on the health care reform legislation, we have found no authority to support a suit.

Now that unlikely federal court has ruled. The court ruled:

At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate....no specifically articulated constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance....an individual's personal decision to purchase - or decline to purchase - health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause...On care review, this Court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision - exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.

Governor Haley Barbour said:

The decision of the federal court in Virginia is encouraging to all of us who consider the Obamacare law unconstitutional; however, we know the case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Virginia Attorney General has asked the Supreme Court to rule on this directly rather than going first through an appeals court. If it goes to the Supreme Court, will Jim Hood finally get on board? In his letter to Governor Haley Barbour mentioned above, Hood said:

If some viable cause of action arises during the years of litigation, it would be much cheaper for the state of Mississippi to wait to join the suit when it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It has been months not years, but maybe that won't discourage Hood.

Hood and BP Spill

We wonder if Attorney General Jim Hood made specific recommendations (and if they are on his campaign contribution list) or just generally suggested this practice.

Mr. Feinberg also will announce Monday that anyone who wants a lawyer to help them sort through the new options can have one for free. At the request of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, Mr. Feinberg plans to hire a firm to offer the free legal services to claimants.

Report on Jim Hood: 'egregious impropriety in hiring private attorneys'

Thanks to Y'all Politics for this news. A new report Beyond Reproach? Fostering Integrity and Public Trust in the Offices of State Attorneys General criticizes the Attorneys General of six states including, not surprisingly, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood. A press release on the report by the American Tort Reform Association describes the problem and offers some of a solution. The Mississippi section of the report is not pretty for Hood.

Mississippi has a long and troubling history of unseemly relationships between the office of the attorney general and plaintiffs’ attorneys. Attorney General Jim Hood was elected in 2003 and has funneled substantial work to his plaintiff lawyer campaign contributors ever since. His tenure as attorney general represents one of the most egregious examples of the impropriety that can be found in the process of states hiring private attorneys.

• Over a five year period following his election in 2003, Attorney General Hood retained at least 27 outside law firms to file at least 20 lawsuits on behalf of the State of Mississippi. These law firms and their attorneys contributed $543,000 to Hood’s campaigns.

• Since 2005 Attorney General Hood has received $149,056 in campaign contributions from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, and the State of Mississippi has contracted with this firm on five lawsuits. Between February 14 - 17 of 2006, Bernstein Litowitz attorneys contributed $25,000 to Hood’s campaign, and on February 21, 2006, Hood selected the firm to represent the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement Fund in a securities class action claim against Delphi Corp. The lawsuit settled for $333.4 million, paying $40.5 million in legal fees.

• The firm Wolf Popper contributed $15,000 to Hood’s campaign on February 22, 2006, and the state of Mississippi contracted with this firm on a lawsuit against Sonus on March 23, 2006. Sonus settled for $9.5 million, including legal fees estimated at $1.5 million.

Legislation similar to the Private Attorney Retention Act has been introduced in Mississippi but has not passed. Even after Dickie Scruggs, the state’s handpicked lawyer, went to jail for bribing a judge, Attorney General Hood has resisted such ethics reforms. Stronger state laws are needed to ensure that private attorneys hired to represent the state are selected through an open and competitive bidding process.

There is plenty more in the report on this problem and Mississippi.

We've been watching this here for a while. Our posts on his relationship with Bernstein Litowitz including a trip to Ireland and "pay to play" tactics, and cartoons on what this does to confidence in the legal system and Robin Hood, and the many, many, many, many calls for more ethics and sunshine in the Office of Attorney General.

More Jim Hood on BP Payments

BP settlement news:

The administrator of BP Plc's (BP.L) $20-billion fund for victims of the worst U.S. offshore oil spill on Wednesday encouraged claimants to file early for final settlements to get the most generous terms.

"I am determined to be more generous than the courts would be..." said Kenneth Feinberg of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility on a conference call as the program stopped taking emergency claims and started work on final settlements.

He warned that Gulf Coast people and businesses who decline to settle and refuse to give BP and its contractors a release from future risk of lawsuits might end up getting less money.

"There is no guarantee that, in the future, a lump sum final payment will be as generous as it will be currently," Feinberg said.

"Until we finish our negotiations with Mr. Feinberg, I advise claimants against signing a release or accepting a final payment without first sharing those payments and paying fees to consulting an attorney," Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said in a statement.

Jim Hood on BP Oil Payments

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, criticized Feinberg’s draft of protocols for final payments requiring lawyers to forego their legal fees victims to waive their legal rights to sue BP and other companies tied to the spill.

Party with Childers, Hood, Presley, Mims

Y'all Politics shares the details about a Monday night party featuring Democratic Congressman Travis Childers, Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood, Democratic Transportation Commissioner Bill Minor, Democratic Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, and nonpartisan judicial candidate Kelly Mims (who has a picture of Haley Barbour in his campaign commercials). No word if Jamie Franks or Bob Marley were there.

Jim Hood Doesn't Like The Topix(.com)

WTVA reports

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has joined attorneys general in several other states in a joint statement to Topix.com.

It focuses on how the internet message board handles posts that are considered abusive and inappropriate.

In a statement released Monday, Attorney General Hood said, "we are concerned about derogatory posts that are personal in nature."

I wonder if he means this one?

Topix.com: MS AG Jim Hood's Office Ignoring Crimes by Gov't and Clergy!

Or maybe this one?

Topix.com: AG pulled into Scruggs fray

WLOX Interviews Hood on Health Care

WLOX has this interview with Attorney General Jim Hood over whether he will file suit against Obamacare.



Here is the transcript. Hood says it is difficult and deals with the supremacy clause. He says he and other "attorneys general vehemently protect states rights when the federal government comes in to preempt our authority to use our consumer protection laws."

He says sometimes the commerce clause can be a "stretch" like when it gives congress the right to regulate the growth of marijuana for personal use.

And he says he isn't going to rush into it.

Hood: We're still researching the issue, you know, I mean there are some real complicated constitutional issues. I've sat down with constitutional scholars, law professors to talk about the commerce clause is a complicated issue as well as you're dealing with the supremacy clause of the United States Constitutional and the Tenth Amendment - states rights - we attorneys general vehemently protect states rights when the federal government comes in to preempt our authority to use our consumer protection laws. So I'm familiar with that aspect but the others, you know, people in our office are looking at it and soon we should be able to arrive at a conclusion as to what to do. We're just trying to find if there’s anything that the state has a leg to stand on in filing that suit.

WLOX: Do you think it is constitutional to ask everyone to get health care?

Hood: Well that's the question we're looking at. The body of law though, you know, I don't necessarily agree with it, that the case law of the United States Supreme Court has stated that, you know, that a person who grows marijuana, for example, for personal use in one state, uh, congress has a right to regulate that because they said that affects interstate commerce, because it would be buying it from something else, which seems like a stretch, but that's a law and so we'll have to deal with what the law is.

WLOX: And uhm you know some people may think ‘well it feels like Mr. Hood is stalling. You're just waiting.’ How do you feel about that? You talked about research right?

Hood: Well, you know, if you're going to file a suit against the United States government, you need to be right. You need to know what you'll be filing, you'll be successful at. And so we're going take our time. We're not going to let anybody rush us into making some decision. We're going to make a learned decision. That's what a lawyer's supposed to do. Let's take the emotion and politics out of it and make a decision based upon the dry law.

WLOX: Do you think it’s become more about politics and not about law?

Hood: Well our office is dealing with it from the point of view that it’s strictly the dry law that we're going to look at. We'll make a decsion and we'll do the right thing.

WLOX: One last question, I guess, how long do you think it will take?

Hood: Well, you know, we've had that issue for about two weeks now and so we're we're. You don't normally file a suit within a two week period. You work on it, you work on your complaint, you review it. Florida is about to file an amended complaint. I'd like to see what their allegations are in that amended complaint. So, we get all the information we can and we'll make a decision based on the evidence and the facts.

WLOX: Barbour says he might file one on his own, what do you think about that?

Hood: Well the statute allows him to do so if the attorney general refuses to or neglects to do so.

WLOX: Anything else?

Hood: That's it.

WLOX: Thank you so much.

A third strike against Hood's allegations regarding Entergy

Yesterday the Mississippi Public Service Commission adopted and certified to the Legislature an independent audit it had commissioned of Entergy Mississippi. This is the third indepdent audit of Entergy in two years and once again - surely to the chagrin of Attorney General Jim Hood's contingency fee contract lawyers - it says Entergy is clean and proper. Entergy issued this release:

Once again, an independent auditing expert, hired by the Mississippi Public Service Commission, has found no improper charges by Entergy Mississippi, Inc. to customers. This is the third MPSC-commissioned, independent audit in two years to reach this conclusion.

McFadden Consulting Group Inc. filed the audit report with the MPSC on Tuesday, March 30, which certified it shortly after. The audit report, which examined Entergy Mississippi’s operations, found that the processes and procedures utilized by Entergy in purchasing power help ensure that energy is procured for customers at the lowest practical costs.

McFadden’s finding is consistent with another Commission-ordered audit report of Entergy Mississippi’s fuel procurement policies and fuel adjustment clause. In that operations report, Vantage Consulting found that Entergy purchases energy, fuel, transmission rights and access, and other related products at the lowest reasonable cost.

The third Commission-ordered audit, by Horne LLP, an accounting and auditing firm, was a financial audit of the company’s energy cost recovery mechanism. Horne’s audit report confirms that Entergy Mississippi has properly accounted for fuel and purchased energy costs.

McFadden’s report points out that Entergy is one of the largest and most complex utilities in the United States, and that the review and analysis was thorough.

Three independent audits; three audits announcing Entergy is proper; three strikes against Attorney General Jim Hood's allegations.

Barbour: "I swore an oath" to support the Constitution

Governor Haley Barbour sent a letter to Attorney General Jim Hood reaffirming his commitment to challenging Obamacare in court as unconstitutional.

As a statewide elected official, I swore an oath that I would "faithfully support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi"...This oath and my own believe that a violation of the Constitution should never go unchecked obligate me to ensure Mississippi challenges the healthcare reform law.

As the Attorneys General of fourteen states have already determined, the healthcare reform law violates the U.S. Constiution...a number of constitutional problems which have already been identified by attorneys and academics across the nation...I intend for Mississippi to join this litigation not later than the date on which the First Amended Complaint is filed by the Attorneys General who States are plaintiffs to the Florida suit. If, by that time, you have determined you wish to represent the state, I would appreciate you and your office's doing so. If you decide otherwise, I will retain outside counsel and provide your office with a copy of the contract for your ratification.

Jim Hood has a lot of baggage going into his 2011 reelection bid. If he refuses to challenge, or refuses to allow Mississippi's Governor to challenge Obamacare in the courts, that would be near the top of the list for any opponent to make an issue.

Florida the even More Sunshine State while Mississippi still in the dark

Florida is increasing their sunshine while Mississippi remains in the dark.

[Florida] Attorney General Bill McCollum today released the following statement after the Transparency in Private Attorney Contracting Act passed the Senate with bipartisan support and a final vote of 27-11:

“Pay-to-play scandals involving public officials have caused citizens to lose trust in their government, and this bill will insulate the Attorney General’s Office from inappropriate influence that is a concern with contingency fee contracts.

“I applaud Senator Thrasher, Representative Eisnaugle and the Leadership of the Florida Legislature for their efforts to pass this bill to promote transparency and accountability.”

The bill, supported by the Attorney General as a top legislative priority, will now head to the Governor for his signature.

“Floridians should have faith in their public officials, and I believe this bill will champion accountability and shine light on contracts between outside law firms and the state's chief legal officer,” said Senator John Thrasher, sponsor of Senate Bill 712.

Florida's legislation required:

provisions such as posting contracts and payments online, keeping detailed time records for private attorneys’ hours, and competitively selecting private attorneys. The bill will also require the Attorney General, prior to entering a contingency fee contract with a private attorney, to make a written determination that the representation is both cost-effective and in the public’s best interest....sensible limitations on the contingency fee percentages to be applied to the damages award, and limits the maximum payout to $50 million in contingency fees, excluding costs. The private legal services engaged on a contingency basis must also be competitively procured, whenever possible.

Meanwhile, Ed Blackmon and House Democrats continue to block this type of reform in Mississippi, at the behest of Attorney General Jim Hood.

Hood Refuses to Authorize Barbour to Sue Obamacare

You can read Attorney General Jim Hood's response to Governor Haley Barbour here.

But the short of it is Hood claims the health care bill is really really hard stuff and will take a long long time to read and figure out and he doesn't know how long, but he is refusing to join with the other states (who apparently were able to figure it out much quicker than him) in filing a lawsuit against it to protect Mississippi.

And lest the Governor decides he wants to do so, Hood makes it clear:

so there will be no misunderstanding with regard to the matters set forth above, you are not authorized by this office to engage or employ counsel, file suit, or intervene in pending litigation at this time while we are completing our review and making our decision whether to file suit

Many attorneys believe Obamacare is clearly unConstitutional. Many other attorneys believe it is clearly permissible under the Constitution. But for Hood...dang, its just really hard stuff and he can't figure it out yet.

Pay to Play drags lawyers through the....

Many attorneys are frustrated with the dirt on the profession from "Pay to Play" allegations. This cartoon expresses their dismay.

Fraudulent asbestos lawyer a Hood fundraising host

This week a federal jury determined William Guy and attorney Thomas Brock should pay Illinois Central Railroad Co. $420,000 in actual and punitive damages for their role in a fraudulent asbestos lawsuit. The "Honorable" William Guy was one of the hosts of this fundraiser for Jim Hood last year.The Associated Press reports, "Guy is a well-known attorney who served two terms as a state representative in the late 1960s and 1970s before moving to the Senate for one term. He ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor as a Democrat in 1995." He also ran unsuccessfully against Senator Bob Dearing in 2007 in the Democratic Primary (64.5% to 35.5%). He has been a donor for many years to Democratic committees, and besides Hood, candidates like John Edwards for President and Congressman Bennie Thompson.

Brock also has contributed more than $3500 to Hood (here, here, here) as well as contributions to Supreme Court Candidate Billy Joe Landrum, Supreme Court Justice James Graves, Supreme Court Candidate Frank Vollor, and others.

“Illinois Central is pleased that a Mississippi federal jury held these plaintiffs’ lawyers liable for fraud in asbestos claims against us,” said Karen Phillips, Vice President of Public and Government Affairs for Illinois Central. Illinois Central attorney Danny Mulholland of Jackson said he's obligated to report the conduct of Guy and Brock to the Mississippi Bar.

"This case is significant because it is the first time I am aware of that a jury has found that asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers committed fraud," said Mark Behrens, a Washington, D.C., attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon.

Add Guy and Brock to the list of shady lawyers supporting and connected to Jim Hood. At least this is just a civil verdict, and they aren't in federal prison like Hood's biggest campaign contributors.

Northside Sun: Jim Hood allows "the judiciary to be a profit center" for campaign contributors

The Northside Sun blistered Attorney General Jim Hood today in an editorial criticizing the contracts from his office to campaign contributors and comparing his "pay to play" reputation with that of his former campaign contributor and former outside counsel and special attorney general Joey Langston.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that some of Attorney General Jim Hood’s largest campaign supporters also happen to get a big slice of the state’s litigation business he farms out to private attorneys.

The system needs to change either to bring more competition to how these contracts are awarded, or to prohibit the attorney general from receiving campaign donations from those who do business with his office.

Some of these same people pitching lawsuits to Hood also happen to show up prominently on his list of campaign contributors. For instance, Texas attorney Ken Bailey gave $75,000 to Hood’s re-election campaign in 2007 and another $110,000 over the past three years to the Democratic Attorney Generals Association, another major Hood donor.

What interest does a Texas attorney have in a Mississippi attorney general’s election, other than the hope that the investment will pay off for him? In Bailey’s case, it has and then some. He is scheduled to receive $2.78 million in attorney’s fees paid by Eli Lilly on top of the $18.5 million the drugmaker has agreed to pay the state in a recent settlement over antipsychotic drugs.

According to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Bailey is just one of several attorneys with a financial stake in Hood’s office. It claims Hood, in his first five years in office, received more than $500,000 from attorneys and law firms doing business with the attorney general.

Just a quick insertion here. That number may be true, but the Wall Street Journal puts the number at $790,000 "from partners and law firms that have benefited financially from [Hood's] office" just in 2007 alone.

Let’s not forget that two of Hood’s biggest campaign contributors, Dickie Scruggs and Joey Langston, are now in prison for attempting to bribe a judge.

Scruggs and Langston were well-known for perfecting this ploy of spinning campaign contributions into big legal fees. You would think that Hood would rush to be squeaky clean after witnessing the fate of his cronies. Instead, the shady practices continue. Hood keeps thumbing the nose at the electorate. Not a politically wise course given an electorate demonstrably averse to politicians lining their pockets in exchange for favoritism.

When Langston was sentenced, the judge stated, “The damage you have done to the rule of law is the real tragedy in this case.” Allowing the judiciary to be a profit center for well-connected campaign contributors is just one more chapter in this sordid story.

Jim Hood & Bailey Perrin "slaughtered" in Zyprexa lawsuit

Y'all Politics shares this piece (Blogging attorneys dissect Miss. Zyprexa decision) from Legal News Line that discusses a recent post by attorneys James Beck and Mark Herrman describing Attorney General Jim Hood's (represented by Bailey Perrin in a no-bid contingency fee contract) recent defeat in the Zyprexa case. They write at Drug and Device Law blog and title it "Pigs Get Fat, Mississippi Got Slaughtered."

Legal News Line explains

Twelve states didn't participate in a 33-state, $62-million settlement last year. Of those 12, six have reached eight-figure settlements while six are still holding out.

Three of those states -- Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Mississippi -- are represented by Bailey Perrin Bailey of Houston.

The entry makes a note of Mississippi's inability to settle. Weinstein had pushed for a mass settlement, appointing a special settlement master and even ordering the states to take 30 days off from their suits to try to reach an agreement last year.

"Mississippi was - again unable or unwilling - to come to such a settlement, so its claims, which were legally meritless in any event, come to naught," the entry says.

We've previously posted that the federal judge called Hood's case "slash-and-burn-style of litigation would arguably constitute an abuse of the legal process" and a Mississippi legal blogger called the ruling "a disaster for General Hood."

Who made the decision? Jim Hood or Bailey Perrin

Who made the decision to forgo an easy settlement with Eli Lily and instead overreach to be rebuked by a federal judge? Was it Jim Hood or his contingency-fee firm Bailey Perrin?

Attorney General Jim Hood often argues that his no-bid contingency-fee contracts benefit Mississippi, but not this time. It seems the Attorney General could have joined a majority of states in agreeing to a settlement himself. But that would not have been as profitable to Bailey Perrin, reportedly connected to $75,000 in campaign contributions to Hood.

Law.com reports :

Mississippi now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being one of very few states that hasn't collected on Zyprexa-related claims against Lilly.

Like several other states, Mississippi opted not to participate in Lilly's record-setting $1.4 billion False Claims Act settlement last January because it wanted to pursue its own litigation against Lilly. But most of those other states have since settled. Last fall, Lilly reached a $62 million deal with 32 states, leaving only 12 states with pending claims. And of those 12, according to LegalNewsline, most have reached official or tentative settlements, including Connecticut ($25.1 million); West Virginia ($22 million-plus); Idaho ($13 million); Utah ($24 million); and South Carolina ($45 million).

Did Hood's outside lawyers decline to settle in order to pursue larger claims and in return rake in more millions? Or did Hood make that decision? Was the decision based on what was best for the client - Mississippi - or did the terms of the contract fee affect the calculations?

Philip Thomas posts at Mississippi Litigation Review that the "loss in Zyprexa Case was a disaster for Attorney General Jim Hood."

This looks like a disaster for General Hood. First, Mississippi loses and collects nothing while other states settled similar claims and made substantial recoveries...Eli Lilly hemorrhaged money to settle the Zyprexa claims and Mississippi, with its budget in ruins, gets nothing. Second, as if the loss was not bad enough, the article revealed that Hood’s hand-picked outside counsel donated substantial money to Hood...$75,000??? From a law firm in Texas? Why in the world, other than the obvious reason, would a law firm in Texas be donating $75,000 to the Mississippi Attorney General?

This is more ammunition for Hood’s critics in general, and the critics of the State’s system of allowing the A.G. to hire and pay outside counsel in particular.

I do not have a problem with the A.G. hiring outside counsel, in theory. But a Texas firm who donated $75,000 to Hood? Let’s be honest—that does not look good. There are plenty of good lawyers in Mississippi who could represent the State and need the work. But there is probably a shortage of non-incarcerated (former) Mississippi lawyers who donated $75,000 to Hood.

Hood is going to end up giving his critics enough ammunition to get the State Legislature to enact a law that restricts the A.G.’s ability to hire outside counsel.

But Hood's office is "pleased."

"While we are disappointed with Judge Weinstein's ruling on some of our claims, we are pleased that the Judge saw the merit in our claim for the millions of inflated drug costs Eli Lilly charged our state over the course of several years," Hood spokesperson Jan Schaefer said.

"We remain confident that our state will ultimately prevail."

Eli Lily is also "pleased."

Weinstein's ruling left standing only Mississippi's claims based on the difference between the market price of Zyprexa and the value the state received. According to Weinstein, that issue is before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals...Lilly...told LegalNewline it was "pleased" with the decision

Federal judge calls out Jim Hood on "slash and burn" litigation, "an abuse of the legal process"

Judge Jack Weinstein, Senior U.S. District Judge in New York, handed Mississippi Attorney General a legal defeat yesterday, accompanied with a side of smack down.

In his decision, Judge Weinstein granted Eli Lilly & Company's motion for summary judgment except on one issue still before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; and denied Hood's own motion for summary judgment. Judge Weinstein said the fines and damages sought by Hood are unConstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment and called it

"grossly disproportionate to both the injury Mississippi has suffered and the seriousness of Lilly's allged misconduct."

Judge Weinstein wrote,

"the State's claims could result in serious harm or bankruptcy for this defendant and the pharmaceutical industry generally....For the legal system to be used for this slash-and-burn-style of litigation would arguably constitute an abuse of the legal process....courts cannot be used as an engine of an industry's destruction."

Y'all Politics noted:

Eli Lilly has paid massive criminal penalties and settled with the federal government and most states. It seems that what Judge Weinstein is saying is that even considering all of that, Mississippi's suit (seeking BILLIONS in damages) is way over the line.

LegalNewsline.com broke the story and noted that the lead law firm representing Mississippi is connected to $75,000 contributed to Hood. Kenneth Bailey, the firm's principle partner, has also come under fire in Pennsylvania for making "repeated and significant contributions" during "the precise time period in which" similar no-bid contingency-fee contracts were "negotiated and executed."

Joey Langston (Hood's largest campaign contributor) and Timothy Balducci (also a major contributor to Hood) formerly worked this case for Hood before they were removed due to their guilty pleas in the Scruggs Scandal.

This is at least the second federal judge this year to call into question Hood's tactics or motives. Back in May, US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff noted:

The Court in not unaware of disturbing allegations that state entities not unlike MissPERS [the Mississippi state retirement system], and law firms not unlike Bernstein Litowitz, have engaged in “pay-for-play” arrangements, by which such an entity will not even consider hiring such a law firm unless the law firm has contributed to the campaign fund of the relevant state elected official, such as the attorney general.

Lawsuits as usual for Jim Hood and his campaign contributors.

US Attorney Hopeful Would Never Protest Fellow Democrats

If this were a Republican nominee for U.S. Attorney, the left would be going nuts.

Northern District U.S. Attorney hopeful Christi McCoy, among those at the fundraiser, said she may not always support Childers, but she would never protest a fellow Democrat.

"It shows public discord within my party," McCoy said, making Democrats "seem vulnerable."

Frankly, we don't care whether she protests a fellow Democrat or not, as long as she will prosecute regardless of party or friendship...unlike our Attorney General who said prosecuting Joey Langston, Steve Patterson and Tim Balducci "would be like prosecuting a relative."

Jim Hood and Brandon Presley's Political Roadshows

It isn't unusual for politicians to do tours of their districts. Heck, that is part of the power of incumbency, you get to go out and meet the voters in your official capacity. We noticed two incumbents launched tours last week: Attorney General Jim Hood and Northern District Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley.

Jim Hood is doing his "Did You Know?" tour that his office describes as a "grassroots initiative" to tell Mississippians what it is the Attorney General's Office does. The trip includes visits to Meridian, Hattiesburg, Laurel, Gulfport, Moss Point, Vicksburg, Lexington, Tupelo, Starkville, Columbus, Natchez, Clarksdale, and Batesville.

Coming up on his seventh year in office, I guess its about time people find out what he does. The commenters over at Y'all Politics have had fun with this.

Brandon Presley's roadshow is different, he is setting up regular office hours in the county's in his district. He will be counting on staff to fill these offices, not himself obviously, because many counties have the same times on the same days. For example on the first and third Tuesday of each month he will have office hours in Winston, Tate, Pontotoc, Coahoma, Monroe, and Montgomery counties all at the same time (9-11am). Assuming he staffs one of them himself, that means he'll have five Public Service Commission staffers working the other courthouse offices. He also has office hours over-lapping the second and fourth Tuesday of every month, every Wednesday of every month, and the second and third Thursday of every month.

Its a good thing Presley argued for additional staff during the session and budget standoff that the Stimulus provided $824,901 to the PSC for additional staff, they obviously are in dire need of more staff to occupy courthouses in North Mississippi.