A recent headline in your newspaper implied that retired Republican state representative, Jason Isaac, had misused campaign funds. The article itself did not show any evidence of abuse. It was simply the opinion of one lawer versus another along with a confusing history of real estate transactions for the Isaac family which seems completely irrelevant. What exactly is the transgression? Given that the article itself did not support the headline, I wonder why the headline was created. For possibly use in future literature opposing Isaac?
Editor’s Note: We concur that Jason Isaac, according to both Republican attorney Eric Opiela and Democratic attorney Buck Wood, did nothing illegal, the expenditures still came into question. Opiela said the ethics behind the expenditures has to do with intent, which could not be proved with the facts as we know them. However, the headline is factually correct, because the validity of the expenditures were questioned.