Story of the week or year?

As previously noted, Ellie Light, which appears to be a pseudonym for numerous editorial comments around the nation, is being tracked by a number of eager bloggers around the country, at this moment. (Ain't the blogosphere wonderful?) Over at American Thinker, Clarice Feldman suggests some links between the DOJ and the president's initiative to establish some propaganda groups within DOJ (paid by your tax dollars) to plant letters around the country and suggest that The One's opposition is wrong, etc. Isn't this illegal? Isn't this wrong for attorneys to be paid by tax dollars to do this? Feldman links back to NRO in October:

Those of you wondering how DOJ uses your tax dollars to enforce our nation's laws might be interested to learn that Eric Holder has apparently hired former Democratic campaign bloggers to work at the department in what appears to be a secret propaganda unit. According to a story at The Muffled Oar website, the bloggers are housed in the Office of Public Affairs (the press office). Their job is to place "anonymous comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and President Obama." One of the bloggers is former DNC and John Edwards staffer Tracy Russo, whose name was featured prominently on the department's introduction of its new website on October 1.

At the same time that DOJ was refusing to answer questions about its outrageous dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and apparently paying government employees to post anonymous or pseudonymous comments or comments under false names attacking critics of the administration, the department declared that it was launching its new website "to increase openness and transparency in government." In fact, Russo claims it is "just the first step towards creating the most open, accessible, and transparent Justice Department possible." If that is true, how can DOJ justify these anonymous/pseudonymous postings? The misrepresentation is clearly material or DOJ wouldn't go to such lengths to engage in it.