Last week, we learned that five solicitors hired a lobbyist with forfeited bond money to "make sure (solicitors) were heard by the General Assembly." That's troubling, for a number of reasons.

The legislation our state's solicitors requested called for a $25 surcharge on traffic tickets to help support law enforcement. It was an important, well-justified proposal.

I supported the surcharge, as did most of my colleagues in the Legislature. And I can say with complete confidence that hiring a lobbyist had no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the vote. In fact, I can't locate a single member who even knew that a paid lobbyist was involved until after the votes were cast.

Frankly, I am puzzled by the decision to use public funds to hire a lobbyist, especially after the House passed a measure this year to prohibit state agencies from using state funds to hire lobbyists. Additionally, I was concerned that the funds used came from forfeited bond money. The General Assembly authorized that money going to solicitors to reimburse the state for court delays and for the cost of tracking down defendants who forfeit bonds -- not for hiring lobbyists.

Even more frustrating is the implication that legislators pay more attention to hired lobbyists than they do to requests for support that come directly from a solicitor or other front-line law enforcement professionals. That is simply not the case.

I admire the essential work provided by our state's 16 circuit solicitors. They have a tough job to do prosecuting criminals and protecting the innocent. During my years of service in the Legislature, I have consistently backed funding for law enforcement. In fact, a few years ago, the Solicitors Association honored me as their legislator of the year.

I also served for a number of years as chair of the Ways and Means subcommittee that covered budgets for law enforcement. Therefore, I speak with understanding and with great sympathy for their mission when I say there is no need for solicitors, individually or collectively, to hire additional people to lobby the Legislature for funds.

The S.C. Commission on Prosecution already hires full-time lobbyists who do an excellent job communicating the budgetary needs of solicitors to legislators. The S.C. Solicitors Association is also a respected voice for its members.

I'm sure the solicitors who made the decision to hire an additional lobbyist meant well. I do not intend to criticize them harshly. They are solid professionals who do a great job under very difficult circumstances. My guess is they were merely acting on bad advice.

The solicitors are their own best advocates. They stand, along with the other heroes of law enforcement, on the thin line of defense that protects our families from violence and chaos.

When a need arises for legislative support, I know I'll pay a lot more attention to a call from a solicitor than I will to a call from a paid lobbyist. And I'm confident that every other member of the General Assembly, whether Republican or Democrat, feels the same way.