The Appearance of Impropriety

There's a higher level of scrutiny for those of us in this business. I've heard that it mostly only applies to US Senate and Whitehouse staffers, those people who speak with or on the authority of the office. But there is a maxim that most of the people I consider to be professionals adhere to-

"the appearance of impropriety is tantamount to the act itself."

After posting the results of the PEER report about the Auditor's office, I heard a rumor that could be verified by public record. My favorite kind. It is predicated on the idea that because Phil Bryant's office had been dependent on outside CPA firms to do the bulk of its auditing work, his campaign for Lt. Gov was receiving a considerable amount of support from CPA firms. If you'll remember, there was a movement in the Legislature, probably in February, to crucify Jim Hood for the same sort of thing- taking contributions from people who'd been awarded contracts, or vice versa. That's a particularly juicy thing. In campaigns, we like phrases like "corrupt, grifter, and on the take".

I can not substantiate that rumor. According to the Bryant campaign's 5/10 finance filing, they received 3 contributions from CPAs totaling $1500. Campaign pocket change. See the file at http://www.sos.state.ms.us/PDF-Out/000000048804.pdf

However, you can't get much out of Phil Bryant's campaign finance reports. For the uninitiated, campaign finance reports provide a lot of information. They tell you what political neighborhood a candidate hangs out in, who they do business with. They're there so that the public has all the information about what industries support candidates, what individuals support candidates, and how, if contributions curry political favor, where you can expect the favors to go. It's part of the sausage making process. Knowing the profession and employer of a contributor is one of the most important parts of the filing.

Phil Bryant's finance report doesn't provide that information. In his 99 page finance filing, 1/4 of his contributions list the employer or profession of a contributor as "Info requested". Another handful are 'self employed'. It's legal, but it means one of two things: 1. They don't want folks like me broadcasting where they're getting their money from. 2. The campaign finance staff isn't doing its job. It's a simple form. Everybody uses the same one. You need that information for the legal document that ensures that you're in compliance with state election law. It's kind of a big deal.

For comparison, I looked at the Franks and Ross campaign filings, just to count the "info requested" contributions. Less than 40 out of both.

I can show absolutely no wrong doing on behalf of the Bryant campaign. But it is the appearance of impropriety.