Who helped Scruggs get immunity in the Minor case?  (Mr. Lott?)

Why was Scruggs’ secretary his “bag-lady.”

OR, AG Jim Hood? or maybe both!

When do Scruggs’ “loans” become bribes? 

Remember the $500,000 “loan” to Lt. Gov. Tuck?

Remember the loans of suspicous loans shown by Gary Anderson in the latest campaign?

Remember the loans of convicted felon Paul Minor, some of which were paid off by Dickie Scruggs?

People have been smelling smoke for some years now, you know?

I don’t feel sorry for any of them.

One of the problems for the wealthier lawyers was the cap on campaign contributions and the reporting requirements.  When those were enacted years ago, the “big pots” (this is from an old English cartoon about lawyers) had to find another way to “help” the judges, so they turned to the loan system.  Also, I’ll bet there are places where one could find - if one could dig deep enough - land partnerships, etc. between lawyers and judges.  And, guess how much the judges had to put upfront.

If I sound cynical, I am.  I realized one day while in court (when I was a “little pot"), that there was suddenly a difference in what I was being required to put on as evidence in an irreconcilable difference ("uncontested") divorce because a “big pot” lawyer was leaning on the side of the judge’s bench while I presented my case.  Guess who he represented.  And, the judge was a very good friend of mine.

We have a system where the judges are not paid enough and have to worry about raising money to keep their office.  We can be high-minded about why they want the job and we can say things like “they knew what it paid when they ran”, but we had better start thinking about things we can do to improve the system.

We need a blind trust law, not just for Haley, but for the lawyers who are in partnership with some lawyer buddies (or anybody for that matter) and decide (or get recruited) to run for judge.  I don’t think the financial disclosure we have now is good enough. I would take caps off of contributions and require disclosure of everything above $500.  Also, ban contributions between PAC’s.  Show me the money, then one will know what the candidate stands for.

Currently, contributions in appelate judicial race is capped at $5000 for an individual, and for a PAC.  And every contiribution above $200.00 must be disclosed.

For circuit and chancery judge elections, PACs and individuals are capped at $2500.00, and the disclosure is still required at the $200.00 threshold.

The only reason that there would be any PAC to PAC contributions is because of the PAC cap. 

Over the years, the caps for individuals have created straw man contributions, whereby a paralegal or secretary in an office also contributes $2500.00, and even the spouse of a secretary contributes $2500.00.  I follow these things pretty closely, and these circumstances have occurred as far as plaintiff firms are concerned.

Of course, those contributions are repaid to the employee by the principals in the firm.  And of course, it’s not legal, but the Attorney Generals that we’ve had in this state would never investigate much less prosecute such an election crime...primarily because the persons committing the act is also a contributor/benefactor of the AG.