First, Brumfield’s story from NEMS360.com: Simpson says he’s ‘not a candidate,’ so no Hatch Act Violation:
Stephen Simpson, who is running for attorney general, says he is not a candidate yet and therefore can’t be in violation of a federal law prohibiting state or local appointed executives from political party campaigns, if they administer federally funded programs.
Simpson, a Republican, is the appointed commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. On Jan. 14, he launched a statewide tour to announce his intention to be a candidate for attorney general…
The Daily Journal’s questions about Simpson’s candidacy began with the appearance of anti-drunk driving TV ads prominently featuring Simpson and his voice several days after he launched his campaign Jan. 14.
Next, the deep doo-doo shoveled up by and reported on Y’all Politics in Anatomy of a press hit:
So, Patsy’s got her intellectual curiosity up, and she needs an expert. So, who should she call? How about a former US Attorney that would theoretically have prosecuted similar sorts of violations? Patsy calls Brad Pigott, who certainly fits the former US Attorney category. Pigott’s a reputable and smart guy, but he’s not unconflicted…Pigott’s got a dog in this hunt other than just being a Democrat as Patsy mentions in the article. He’s a big Jim Hood donor…
Last, but by no means least, today’s Sun Herald story: To the incumbents go the spoils: Taxpayer-funded agency advertising and ‘electioneering’ can help officeholder during election time:
It’s a perk of incumbency, especially in statewide or higher office: You have access to a taxpayer-funded or program-funded public relations and advertising machine. If used effectively, it can spread your name and goodwill to voters in a way that would break the bank for a challenger.
SLABBED reports, you decide if Patsy launched a biased attack on Simpson or raised an important issue for voters to consider – but be sure to follow the links and read all three stories before making up your mind.