Editorial Roundup: Mississippi

Recent editorials from Mississippi newspapers:

___

Feb. 25

The Enterprise Journal on a loophole in a law aimed at limiting how campaign donations are spent:

A couple of years ago, after lawmakers and others in Mississippi government were shamed by the revelation of how much campaign money they were using to pay for clothes, cars, apartments and other personal perks, the Legislature tightened up on how the donations could be used.

In order to get the votes the reform needed for passage, however, lawmakers included a major loophole: The new restrictions would only apply to money raised starting in 2018. Anything saved over from before then could still be treated like the recipient’s personal bank account.

The Clarion Ledger this week reported on some of those who have recently cashed in.

Lynn Fitch, whom voters promoted from state treasurer to attorney general, took personal possession of the last $15,531 in her old account two days after Christmas. It must have been a big holiday at the Fitch household.

Greg Snowden, who held a top Republican leadership position in the House of Representatives before his defeat last year, cashed out about $9,000 for himself.

These two examples, though, are small potatoes to the potential payoff for the two major opponents in last year’s governor’s race.

Jim Hood, the unsuccessful Democratic candidate, still has $371,000 that he can claim for himself. Tate Reeves, the winning Republican, has five times as much - almost $1.9 million.

Interestingly, Reeves, a former banker, did some fancy financial maneuvering to preserve the size of this potential golden parachute.

That old account, prior to the hotly contested GOP primary, had a balance of about $5 million. As the cost of Reeves’ massive advertising blitz outpaced even his prodigious fundraising, he drew out $3.2 million from the old account to cover campaign expenses. When his campaign treasury needed another cash infusion as he and Hood neared the finish line, Reeves decided that rather than further depleting the old account, he would personally lend his new one $1.3 million.

How come? He’s not saying, but the following scenario sounds probable. Reeves can raise the $1.3 million from his supporters to pay off that loan to himself and still leave untapped the $1.9 million in the old account either for a future campaign or for life after politics.

The possibility for such personal payouts should be eliminated. The Legislature should require either that the pre-2018 donations be transferred to an incumbent’s post-2018 campaign fund, be donated to charity or returned to the donors. Money given to candidates to run their election campaigns is supposed to be for just that. Donations intended for other purposes - such as providing a cushier lifestyle for officeholders or supplementing their retirement - are bribes. That should be illegal, no matter when the money was given.

Online: http://www.enterprise-journal.com

___

Feb. 25

The Dispatch on a proposed bill that would change the Legislature’s public notice laws:

Once again this year, the Legislature is considering legislation that would give local governments the option to post public notices on a website instead of publishing those notices in newspapers. If passed into law, this would be a move away from government transparency and, in some cases, could end up being more expensive to taxpayers.

Current law requires local governments to post public notices in local newspapers. These public notice laws apply to many important public actions including setting budgets, issuing bonds, requesting bids, unclaimed property and court decisions. When the city or county sends a newspaper a public notice, the newspaper has certain responsibilities to run the notice on particular days and prove it has run with a signed affidavit. For decades, this practice has created a permanent paper trail, has helped hold local officials accountable and has helped inform citizens about the actions of their government.

One proposed bill, SB-2606, would dismantle all of those advantages and allow local governments to instead post notices on government-maintained websites in a way that can be seen by the public for three weeks. There is no requirement to maintain an archive or permanent record of public notices, which is another advantage of newspapers: You can always go back and find a notice.

In Mississippi, public notices are not big money-makers for newspapers. Current law caps what a paper can charge for public notices, and in a county like Lowndes, where there are two newspapers, the papers bid against each other to be the “paper of record.” After years of bidding between this paper and The Packet, both the city of Columbus and Lowndes County pay a fraction of a penny per word for public notices. (The Packet is currently the paper of record for both the city and county.)

Should notices be published online in addition to in print? Absolutely.

In fact, in addition to publishing public notices in print, newspapers across the state already publish notices online. For more than a decade, the Mississippi Press Association has paid to maintain an online searchable database of public notices. This database, which can be found by googling “mississippi public notices,” is completely free to the public. Members of the public can even set up alerts for certain types of notices.

By publishing public notices in print and online, newspapers help place this important information in front of a large audience. A 2016 state-wide survey found seven out of 10 Mississippians read a newspaper in a typical week. There are countless stories of people and businesses “stumbling over” an important public notice while browsing the paper. We think it is unlikely the public will make a point to occasionally visit multiple government-run websites to review public notices.

Local lawmakers involved in considering the bill in committee are Angela Turner-Ford (West Point), Kabir Karriem (Columbus) and Rob Roberson (Starkville).

We encourage those lawmakers to support government transparency by rejecting this bill.

Online: https://www.cdispatch.com

___

Feb. 21

The Greenwood Commonwealth on Mike Bloomberg’s campaign efforts in Mississippi:

Mississippi normally doesn’t get much attention during presidential elections because it’s virtually guaranteed to go to the Republican nominee. The last Democrat to carry the Magnolia State was Jimmy Carter in 1976, and since then the state has only continued to shift further to the right.

It’s illustrative to look at the percentages that the GOP presidential nominee has received in Mississippi over the past two decades.

No matter who the candidates are on either side, the Republican is a sure bet to get a firm majority of between 55% and 59%. If Barack Obama, who was hugely popular among the state’s sizable black population, could not break that pattern, then it’s almost guaranteed that no other Democrat can.

In spite of that, billionaire Mike Bloomberg is pouring millions into a campaign in Mississippi. Mississippi Today reported this week that the former New York City mayor has hired 24 full-time staffers in Mississippi leading up to the March 10 primary. No other Democratic candidate has more than two.

And Bloomberg has spent at least $2.3 million in Mississippi on TV ads, according to Federal Communications Commission records tracked by FiveThirtyEight referenced in the Mississippi Today story. No one else has put in more than the paltry $25,000 by longshot Tom Steyer.

So why is Bloomberg, a savvy businessman, pouring so much money into what is bound to be a losing effort? The only explanation that makes sense is that Bloomberg is maneuvering to get attention to his campaign by winning a large number of state primaries, and the easiest way to do that is to campaign hard in states where the other candidates aren’t trying.

That could well lead him to his party’s nomination. After that, Bloomberg could focus on the swing states that could actually have bearing on the outcome of the race.

Although it’s off-message for a party that preaches it represents the little man to have an affluent mogul essentially buy the nomination, Bloomberg could represent the party’s best hope.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are too extreme to attract the independent voters who went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016.

Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are more toward the center ideologically, but the vice president is having trouble generating enthusiasm for his campaign, and it seems improbable that this nation is ready to elect its first openly gay president.

Amy Klobuchar is also a centrist who is gaining some traction, but the Minnesota senator still has a long way to go to show she can raise enough money and close the identification gap fast enough to be competitive.

Whatever the outcome of the Democratic primaries, you can bet that Mississippi will be no more than an afterthought by the time the general election rolls around in November. The Republican lock on Mississippi politics virtually guarantees that no statewide race will go to a Democrat for many years to come.

Online: https://www.gwcommonwealth.com