Mississippi Today

Attorney General Lynn Fitch wants campaign finance reform and more enforcement — wait, what?

Published

1 year ago

February 19, 2024

Attorney General Lynn Fitch’s reluctance to investigate or prosecute campaign finance violations last year prompted other state leaders to call for reform and more enforcement.

Now Fitch is calling for — wait for it — campaign finance reform and more enforcement. This appears to be at least in part political damage control, trying to get out front in an area where she’s drawn slings and arrows.

Fitch, whose own campaign is largely funded by out-of-state special interests, in a brief media tour with conservative media outlets said she wants to put a halt to “out of state influencers” with deep pockets meddling in Mississippi elections.

But oddly, in announcing this crusade, Fitch offered an open call to out-of-state influencers to dump unlimited amounts of money into Mississippi elections.

Fitch, in her press release announcing her call for reform, said — contrary to more than 30 years of legal interpretation and practice — there is no limit to the amount of money out-of-state corporations can donate to a Mississippi candidate. She even put it in italics, for emphasis on her attempted nullification of one of the few stringent campaign donation rules Mississippi has.

This goes against at least 30 years of legal interpretation and practice. Mississippi candidates and campaigns, bless their hearts, have operated under the assumption that out-of-state corporations face the same $1,000 a year donation limit as in-state corporations.

In its written campaign finance guide for Mississippi candidates, the secretary of state’s office for decades has advised candidates: “Corporations, incorporated companies, and incorporated associations are prohibited from contributing more than $1,000 per calendar year, directly or indirectly, to a political party, candidate for office or political committee.” The current 2024 guide for candidates includes this same language that does not make a distinction between out-of-state and in-state corporations.

Fitch’s office did not answer questions about her new interpretation that such limits don’t apply to out-of-state corporations. It would appear that only months ago — on Aug. 4, 2023 — Fitch herself appeared to believe that limit applied. She announced, after months of inaction on major campaign finance complaints, that her office was investigating whether a PAC run by lieutenant governor candidate Chris McDaniel’s campaign treasurer tried “exceeding corporate contribution limits” by shuffling out-of-state money through PACs.

But now, Fitch contends out-of-state corporations do not face the state’s $1,000 limit law. This is likely based on the wording of that law, which says, “It shall be unlawful for any corporation … organized under the laws of this state” to exceed $1,000 a year in donations to a candidate. But that law also says this applies to any corporation “doing business in this state.” This language, similar to corporate law and rules elsewhere in Mississippi regulations and those of other states, has been generously interpreted. Doing business in this state can mean many things, including making a donation to a candidate, and hence out-of-state corporations have been at least in practice limited to $1,000 a year.

It would appear Fitch — the only statewide official with clear authority to investigate and prosecute campaign finance violations — is going through some legal contortions in an effort to avoid having to do so. Many political observers believe this is because she has higher political ambition, perhaps for the governor’s office, and doesn’t want to draw ire from the more conservative wing of the GOP by clamping down on campaign finances.

In a radio interview last week, Fitch said, “We’re allowing out-of-state influencers to determine and to pick who the candidates should be in our state … (and) We’ve got to have enforcement.” She said there were instances last election that were “clearly unethical and clearly immoral … but they weren’t criminal under our laws.” She said she wants lawmakers to fix that. Others have said Fitch’s office has campaign enforcement power that she refuses to exercise.

Fitch’s call for reform and limiting out-of-state money in Mississippi rings a little hollow. A majority of Fitch’s own campaign money, according to her 2023 finance reports, came from out-of-state businesses: about $727,000 of $1.27 million.

Fitch also appears to get lots of money from out-of-state interests to whom her office awards contracts. Records show that Fitch signed at least nine AG office contracts last year with out-of-state law firms (law firms and other forms of limited liability companies do not face a $1,000 limit) that had donated more than $300,000 to her campaign.

Secretary of State Michael Watson declined comment on Fitch’s call for reform and statement that the $1,000 limit doesn’t apply to out-of-state corporations. Watson has called for major reforms and last summer appeared to take a dig at Fitch when he said he wasn’t seeking more power for his office.

“But when people do not do their jobs,” he said, “I will stand in the gap for Mississippians.”

Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who filed several campaign finance complaints with the AG’s office against his primary opponent McDaniel last year, has also called for reform and more enforcement. On primary election night when his victory was evident, Hosemann said campaign finance reform would be a top Senate priority this session.

Calls for Mississippi campaign finance reform are fairly common, particularly during statewide election years. But actual reform is rare. In 2017, after a more than year-long investigative series by the Clarion Ledger, lawmakers did pass law ending the practice of Mississippi politicians spending campaign donations for personal expenses — a practice dubbed “legalized bribery.”

But otherwise, Mississippi’s weak campaign finance laws for decades have only been tweaked and changed piecemeal. The laws are now a confusing, often conflicting, patchwork. For instance, the new law on spending for personal expenses conflicts with some existing law that was left intact.

And enforcement has been nearly nonexistent.

It’s unclear whether sweeping reform such as that being proposed by Watson will be addressed this legislative session. Generally lawmakers are loath to police their own campaigns or give more enforcement power to any other office holder. Some have said the appointed Ethics Commission should be given more authority and enforcement power, as many other states have non-elected entities policing campaign finances.

Fitch’s Democratic challenger in last year’s election, attorney Greta Kemp Martin, campaigned unsuccessfully on reform and enforcement of campaign finance laws.

“It’s amusing to see Attorney General Fitch’s newfound interest in election laws,” Martin said last week, “especially considering there was no apparent concern leading up to Election Day. Enhance penalties, reform and clarity are needed in Mississippi campaign finance for sure. But AG Fitch has not shown that enforcement of even the minimal laws currently in place has even been a priority for her office … Further, this sudden interest has me curious as to whether AG Fitch has taken a look at her own financial reports, especially when it involves out-of-state donations.”

Fitch did not provide great detail on her “reform package” in her press release or subsequent interviews. Her office did not answer questions on what specific bills might be forthcoming or which lawmakers would be filing them.

But Fitch did say she wants more transparency and truthfulness in campaign finance reporting, suggesting “adding a penalty of perjury to all campaign finance reports, which can carry up to 10 years in prison.” She also called for improving the civil penalties for violations and “giving the secretary of state authority to do his job” of making public campaign finance reports easy to read and search.

Despite most everyone else already thinking it’s the law for decades, Fitch wants to prohibit “all corporate contributions over $1,000 — not just those made by Mississippi corporations, which is current law.” (Those italics are by her.)

In her press release, Fitch said: “We have devised a package of reforms that will tighten the laws to keep outside special interests from meddling in our elections, to give Mississippi voters the tools to know who is trying to influence their vote, and to hold bad actors accountable.”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/?p=332824

Up Next

On this day in 2017

Don't Miss

On this day in 1923

Mississippi Today

Coast judge upholds secrecy in politically charged case. Media appeals ruling.

Published

5 hours ago

July 14, 2025

Staff Editor

mississippitoday.org – @MSTODAYnews – 2025-07-14 10:30:00

by Anita Lee, Sun Herald and Taylor Vance, Mississippi Today
July 14, 2025

A Jackson County Chancery Court judge is denying the public access to a case that involves several politically connected Mississippians and their failed venture to ticket uninsured motorists using cameras and artificial intelligence.

Media companies Mississippi Today and the Sun Herald have filed for relief with the state Supreme Court, arguing that Chancery Judge Neil Harris improperly closed the court file without notice and a hearing to consider alternatives. The media outlets say the court file should be opened.

Mississippi Today in June filed its motion asking that Harris unseal the case, which he denied six days later.

Gulfport attorney Henry Laird writes in the media companies’ petition for state Supreme Court review, “The Chancery Court sealing the entire court file both before and after Mississippi Today’s motion to unseal the file violates the public and press’ cherished right of openness and access to its public court system and records.”

Mississippi judges have long followed a 1990 state Supreme Court decision that says, “A hearing must be held in which the press is allowed to intervene on behalf of the public and present argument, if any, against closure.”

Instead, Harris said he found no hearing necessary after reviewing the pleadings to open the file. The case, he said, is between two private companies.

“There are no public entities included as parties,” he wrote, “and there are no public funds at issue. Other than curiosity regarding issues between private parties, there is no public interest involved.”

The case involves what is usually a public function: Issuing tickets to the owners of uninsured vehicles. And, according to one party to the case, the Mississippi Department of Public Safety is owed $345,000 from the uninsured motorist program.

Since the entire court file is closed, the public is unable to see why the judge sealed the case. The Mississippians said in the Chancery Court case that they have “substantial” business interests to protect and “a lot of political importance,” an attorney opposing them said in a related federal case that is not sealed.

Jackson County Chancery Judge Neil Harris

Georgia-based Securix LLC signed up its first Mississippi client in 2021, the city of Ocean Springs, an agreement with the city showed. Securix developed a program that uses traffic cameras, artificial intelligence and bulk data on insured motorists to identify the owners of vehicles without insurance.

To sign on other Mississippi cities, Securix enlisted three well-known consultants, Quinton Dickerson, Josh Gregory and Robert Wilkinson. Dickerson and Gregory are Republican political operatives in Jackson who have run numerous state and local campaigns and advise many of the state’s top elected officials. Wilkinson, a Coast attorney, has represented local governments and government agencies, including the city of Ocean Springs.

MS business partnership sours

In 2023, the Mississippians formed QJR LLC. Their company entered a 50-50 partnership with Securix called Securix Mississippi.

Securix Mississippi sold the cities of Biloxi, Pearl and Senatobia on the uninsured driver program.

Fees collected from uninsured drivers were apportioned to the company, the cities and the Department of Public Safety, the operating agreement with Biloxi showed.

The citations offered three options, according to copies included in a federal lawsuit filed by three Mississippi residents who received them:

Call a toll-free number and provide proof of insurance.
Enter a diversion program that charges a $300 fee and includes a short online course and requires agreement that the vehicle will not be driven uninsured on public roadways.
Contest the ticket in court and risk $510 in fines and fees, plus the potential of a one-year driver’s license suspension.

The Securix Mississippi partnership soon soured.

Securix Chairman Jonathan Miller of Georgia said in a sworn court declaration submitted in the federal case that he was subjected around March 2024 to a “freeze out” by members and/or employees of QJR. They stopped giving him information, Miller said.

The Department of Public Safety in August pulled the plug on the controversial ticketing program, shutting off the company’s access to the insured driver database.

In September, QJR filed its Chancery Court lawsuit against Securix LLC.

What is known about the case comes from documents in the federal court file. QJR claims the company and its members have been defamed by Miller and Securix and wants their 50-50 business partnership dissolved.

The Chancery Court case does not even show up when the parties are searched for by name.

With a case number gleaned from the federal court file, a search of chancery records shows only that the case is under seal.

Normally, when a case is under seal, the docket would still be available. A docket lists all records and proceedings in a case. While sealed records are listed and described, they can’t be viewed.

“There is no court file,” attorney Laird said in asking the Supreme Court to review Judge Harris’ decision to leave the file sealed. “There is no docket sheet. There is absolutely no access on the part of the public or press to their public court file in this case.”

Judge closes file without public notice

All Mississippi court files are presumed open unless they are closed with notice and a hearing under guidelines established in the 1990 case Gannett River States Publishing Co. vs. Hand.

“It appears that the judge ignored what has been settled law in Mississippi since 1990,” said retired Jackson attorney Leonard Van Slyke, who represented Gannett in the case and still advises the media.

He added, “Since that time, there have not been many efforts to close a courtroom or a court file because the rules are pretty clear as to when that can be done. It is obvious from the rules that this would be a rare occurrence.”

A court file can be closed only if a party in the case requesting closure can show an “overriding interest” that would be prejudiced by publicity.

The Supreme Court said in 1990 that the public is entitled to at least 24 hours’ notice — on the court docket — before a judge considers closure. As a representative of the public, the media has a right to a hearing before a court file or proceeding is closed.

At the hearing, the judge must consider the least restrictive closure possible and reasonable alternatives. The judge also must make findings that explain why alternatives to closure were rejected.

The court wrote in Gannett vs. Hand:

“A transcript of the closure hearing should be made public and if a petition for extraordinary relief concerning a closure order is filed in this Court, it should be accompanied by the transcript, the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the evidence adduced at the hearing upon which the judge bases the findings and conclusions.”

Because Judge Harris held no hearing, the high court will have a scant record on which to base its review. Without a court record, Laird pointed out in his filing, the public can have no confidence the judge made a sound decision.

Kevin Goldberg, an attorney who serves as vice president and First Amendment expert at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Freedom Forum, said the First Amendment guarantees the public access to courts.

In the Securix case, he said, a private business was doing work normally performed by a police department or other public agency, and residents could be snared into legal proceedings when they received tickets and public funds were involved.

“These are not private people in a small town, going about their business,” Goldberg said. “These people’s business is the public’s business . . . I think that means they need to accept that they’re going to be scrutinized all the time, including when they voluntarily make a decision to go to court.”

This article was produced in partnership between the Sun Herald and Mississippi Today.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Coast judge upholds secrecy in politically charged case. Media appeals ruling. appeared first on mississippitoday.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article maintains a largely factual and investigative tone, focusing on government transparency, judicial procedure, and public access to court records. It critiques the secrecy upheld by a judge in a politically sensitive case involving private companies executing public functions, highlighting concerns about accountability and public interest. The framing leans slightly toward advocating for open government and media rights, values often associated with center-left perspectives. However, it stops short of overt ideological framing or partisan language, striving to report the facts and legal context while underscoring the public’s right to scrutiny.

Mississippi Today

Why Andy Gipson is running for governor

Published

9 hours ago

July 14, 2025

Staff Editor

mississippitoday.org – @GeoffPender – 2025-07-14 06:30:00

by Geoff Pender and Taylor Vance, Mississippi Today
July 14, 2025

Republican Andy Gipson, the first candidate to publicly announce a run for Mississippi governor in 2027, outlines his five-plank platform. No. 1 is fighting crime, which Gipson says is rising in what were once quiet rural areas, because “If people don’t feel safe, nothing else matters.” He also offers a brief sampling of his baritone crooning from his just-released two studio albums.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Why Andy Gipson is running for governor appeared first on mississippitoday.org

Mississippi Today

‘Will you trust us?’: JPS plan for stricter cellphone policy makes some parents anxious

Published

3 days ago

July 11, 2025

Staff Editor

mississippitoday.org – @mintamolly – 2025-07-11 15:25:00

by Molly Minta, Mississippi Today
July 11, 2025

Superintendent Errick Greene wanted to be very clear with the roughly 50 parents who attended Thursday night’s community listening session: Jackson Public Schools already has a policy banning students from using cellphones at school.

Aaliyah McIntyre, left, and her mother Ashley McIntyre attend a Jackson Public Schools listening session on July 10, 2025, about the district’s new policy on cellphone use. They raised concerns about how parents would be notified in the event of an emergency.

But the leadership of Mississippi’s third-largest school district has decided that a new approach is in order, citing a series of incidents in recent years involving students using their cellphones to bully others, organize fights or text their parents inaccurate information about violence happening at or near their school.

“To be clear, it’s not the majority of our scholars, but I can’t look at a class and know who’s gonna be bullying today, who’s gonna be scheduling a meetup to cut up today,” Greene said toward the end of the hour-long meeting held at the JPS board room. “I can’t look at a group of scholars and say, ‘OK, yeah, you’re the one, let me take your phone, the rest of you can keep it.’”

Under the rewritten policy, students who take their phone out of their backpacks during the instructional day will lose it for five days for the first infraction, 10 days for the second and 45 days for the third. Currently, the longest the school will hold a phone is 10 days.

The Jackson school board is expected to consider the new policy at its meeting next week and the district hopes to implement the change when the new school year starts later this month, said Sherwin Johnson, the district’s communications director.

Students also currently have the option to pay up to a $25 fine to get their phone back, but the district wants to rescind that aspect of the policy.

“We’ve discovered that’s not equitable,” said Larrisa Harris, the JPS general counsel. “Not everybody has the resources to come and pay the fine.”

Support for the new policy among the parents who spoke at the listening session varied, but all had questions. How will students access the internet on their laptops if the WiFi is spotty at their school and they need to use their cellphone hotspot? If students are required to keep their phones in their backpacks during lunch, how will teachers prevent stealing? How will JPS enforce the ban on using cellphones on the bus?

One mother said she watches her daughter’s location while she rides the bus to Jim Hill High School so she knows her daughter made it safely.

“If they can’t have it on the bus, who’s gonna enforce that?” she said. “I’m just gonna be real, the bus driver got to drive.”

A common theme among parents was anxiety at the prospect of losing direct contact with their kids in the event of an emergency. A Pew Research survey found that most adults, regardless of political affiliation, support cellphone bans in middle and high school classes. But those who don’t say it’s because their child can use their phone during emergencies.

“If something happened, will we get an automatic alert to notify us? Because a lot of the time we see things on social media first,” said Ashley McIntyre, a mother of three JPS students. She attended the meeting with her eldest daughter, Aaliyah, who recently graduated from Powell Middle School.

Though JPS does have an alert system for parents, McIntyre said she didn’t know if it existed. She cited a bomb threat at Powell last year that she found out about because Aaliyah texted her, not through a school alert.

“We didn’t know what was going on, and she texted me, ‘Mom, I’m scared,’ so I went up there,” McIntyre said. “So that puts us on edge.”

Aaliyah said she uses her phone to text her mom and watch TikTok, but she feels like her classmates use their phones to be popular or to fit in. When a fight happens, she said many students pull out their phones to record instead of trying to get an adult who can stop it. Then the videos end up on Instagram pages dedicated to posting fights in JPS.

“Once the principal found out about the fight pages, they came around looking inside our videos and camera rolls,” she said. “It happened to me last year. They thought I had a fight on my phone.”

Toward the end of the meeting, Laketia Marshall-Thomas, the assistant superintendent for high schools, took the mic to respond to one parent who said she was concerned that older students would not come to school if they knew their phone could be taken.

“What we have seen is, it’s the older students—” Marshall-Thomas began.

“They are the problem,” someone from the audience chimed in.

“We’re not saying they cannot have them,” she continued. “We know that they have after school activities and they need to communicate with their moms … but we have had major, major issues with cellphones and issues that have even resulted in criminal outcomes for our scholars, but most importantly, our students … have experienced a lot of learning loss.”

While the district leadership did not go into detail about the criminal incidents, several pointed to instances where students have texted their parents inaccurate information, such as an unsubstantiated rumor there was a gun during a fight at Callaway High School or that a shooting outside Whitten Middle School occurred on school property.

“Having phones actually creates far more chaos than they help anyone,” Greene said.

While cellphones have been banned to varying degrees in U.S. schools for decades, youth mental health concerns have renewed interest in more widespread bans across the country. Cellphone and social media usage among school-aged kids is linked to negative mental health outcomes and instances of cyberbullying, research shows.

At least 11 states restrict or ban cellphone use in schools. After Mississippi’s youth mental health task force recommended that all school districts implement policies that limited cellphone and social media usage in classrooms, a bill that would’ve required school boards to create cellphone policies died during the legislative session. Still, several Mississippi school districts have passed their own policies, including Marshall County and Madison County.

Another concern about the ban was a belief among a couple of speakers at the meeting that cellphones can help parents hold the district accountable for misdeeds it may want to hide.

“I just saw a video today. It was not in JPS, but it was a child being yelled at by the teacher and had he not recorded it, his momma would have never known that this sweet lady that they go to church with is degrading her child like that,” one mother said.

Statements like these prompted responses from teachers and other parents who urged the skeptical attendees to be more trusting or to make sure the district has updated contact information for them in case school officials need to reach parents during an emergency.

“I think we have to trust the people watching over our children,” said one of the few fathers who spoke. “When I grew up, what the teacher said was gold.”

One teacher asked the audience, “Will you trust us?”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post ‘Will you trust us?’: JPS plan for stricter cellphone policy makes some parents anxious appeared first on mississippitoday.org

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The article presents a balanced report on Jackson Public Schools’ proposed stricter cellphone policy without taking a clear ideological stance. It fairly conveys the perspectives of school officials emphasizing discipline and safety, alongside parental concerns about communication and emergency access. The tone remains neutral, focusing on factual details such as policy changes, reasons behind them, and community reactions. While it includes some skepticism from parents and responses from district staff, the language does not endorse or oppose either side. Overall, the coverage adheres to neutral, factual reporting by presenting multiple viewpoints without editorializing.