/Quid pro quo charges dominate governor’s race; candidates accuse each other of accepting donations for political favors

Quid pro quo charges dominate governor’s race; candidates accuse each other of accepting donations for political favors

Both major party candidates, Republican Lt. Governor and Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood, are being accused of accepting campaign donations for political favors. Tate Reeves and Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood, both major party candidates, accuse each other of accepting campaign contributions for political favors or instances of quid proquos. Hood was seen standing in front of a large pre-qualified loan offer of $1,206 from a small lender to help him pay for “the extra money he needs to go back to school.” Hood claimed it was a teacher. Hood claimed that the mailer was sent to teachers asking them to “go borrow money from me at high interest rates to buy supplies for my school.” Reeves has also run TV commercials alleging Hood’s campaigns were supported by trial lawyers who received millions of dollars for their work for the Attorney General. Because he was found red-handed funneling taxpayer funds to his campaign donors, Jim Hood is trying desperately to spin a web of lies. The WSJ investigated his “sleazy” practice of paying kickbacks to donors. Reeves posted the following on social media: “Desperate Democrat ploy.” Reeves posted the tweet using a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticizing the practice by states’ attorneys general contracting to trial lawyers in order to pursue major lawsuits. Hood often receives state contracts from the same trial lawyers who contributed to his campaign. Hood has been criticised for this issue in almost every campaign that he has ever run. Hood stated in defense of the practice that outside counsel contracts are awarded on an “first come, first served” basis. This means that the first attorneys to bring a case to the office receive the contract. Contracts are not given based on campaign contributions, unlike Tate Reeves. Outside counsel are not paid unless the case is won. Fees are paid by the defendants and not the state. Hood has returned $3 billion to taxpayers due to corporate wrongdoing.” Hood, assisted by private attorneys, won multimillion-dollar lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that overcharged the state for drugs for Medicaid recipients. Hood also sued telecommunications companies. Private attorneys are responsible for paying the costs of the lawsuit, which can often amount to millions of dollars. They also get paid only if the state wins. Many Republican opponents label Hood’s use outside counsel as a “pay to play” scheme. His Republican opponent found out that Hood received more than $400,000 in campaign contributions from outside counsel who were chosen by the AG’s office. Hood continues to heavily rely on lawyers – including some who he has employed to work on lawsuits- to make campaign contributions. An analysis of campaign finance reports shows that there are many examples of lawyers who have been given contracts to sue the state for campaign donations. A. Lee Abraham, a Greenwood attorney, was the former governor. Ronnie Musgrove, ex-AG Mike Moore, and others. Hood’s ongoing lawsuit against opioid manufacturers was handled by John Davidson, a Flowood lawyer. John Davidson contributed $10,000 to Hood’s campaign last year. Ridgeland’s Abdalla Law Firm received $6.7million in legal fees to settle multiple lawsuits that provided $26.6 million to state in cases where companies were accused of paying Chris Epps, former Department of Corrections Commissioner, to obtain contracts with the state. Hood’s contributors are members of the Abdalla Law Firm. Hood said, “We have 3,500 cases. Hood stated that many cases are outsourced to outside lawyers who don’t pay him a dime. Hood was called a trial lawyer by Reeves. He has employed trail lawyers from across the county… Over the past 16 years, he has received hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars in these trial lawyers. Reeves stated that it was sleazy, and wrong. Hood is a civil trial lawyer and has never been in private practice. Hood has been a prosecutor for most of his legal career. Hood calls Hood sleazy while Reeves calls Hood deceitful. Hood instead turns to the Bible for condemnation. Hood stated that Tate Reeves, the temple’s money changer, is Tate Hood. Hood cites $440,000 of donations Reeves received from “predatory lender” Hood. Hood stated that the Reeves campaign was funded by the same small loan companies that gave to him as a lieutenant governor. These bills allow interest rates up to 297 per cent on installment loans upto $2,500, and eliminate much of the legislative oversight for small loan companies such as payday lenders which can charge interest rates up to 500 percent. Hood also mentions that Entergy Reeves received more than $97,000 in campaign donations. Reeves’ Senate introduced legislation to make it easier for the Attorney General to sue Entergy Reeves for overcharging consumers for electricity. Hood also pointed out that Reeves’ Senate initiated legislation to make it more difficult for the Attorney General’s office to sue the utility over claims it overcharged consumers for electricity. Hood’s campaign stated that legislation was passed to allow the company to pass $1 billion to its customers for its failed attempt to convert lignite coal into electricity at its Kemper County Power Plant. Hood stated that Reeves is transactional in all he does. Hood said that everything he does is transactional. The Reeves campaign attacked Hood’s use private attorney to sue the state._x000D