The Fine Print

Gov. Rick Scott cranks back up the money machine

There's no "concrete" plan yet, but Gov. Rick Scott is back at work when it comes to gathering money for one of the key political groups that helped Scott win the governor's race last year.

Let's Get to Work has been largely dormant since Scott won his election last November.

But the group's own website shows that this past summer it got a $100,000 check.

Here's a short story about it.

Who didn't raise money during the session?

This past week Roll Call did a story about the Republican Party of Florida and Gov. Rick Scott.

Down in the story was the following information: Scott did not raise money for the party during the 60-day legislative session as a "matter of policy."

When asked about it this week, top aides to Scott acknowledged that the information was accurate and that Scott did in fact refrain from raising money while lawmakers were in session and crafting new laws and policies for the state.

(There's no legal obligation for Scott to refrain from raising money. It is worth noting that Scott, however, still attended Lincoln Day dinners held by county GOP executive committees around the state. These events usually serve as fundraisers for local organizations.)

Scott's decision regarding fundraising is a contrast from other elected officials.

State legislators seeking federal office - and this includes both Democrats and Republicans during the last decade - have raised money for their campaigns during session.

This year that list included Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who is seeking to knock off incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson.

Haridopolos raised $2.6 million during the first three months of the year and an analysis done by the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald Tallahassee bureau concluded that Haridopolos "received his biggest chunks of money from the special interests who wanted something out of the 60-day legislative session."

Haridopolos, it should be noted, said that he did not hold fundraisers once lawmakers began their session in early March. He also has continually noted that Nelson continues to raise money while Congress in session.

When asked about Scott's decision, a spokesman for the governor was quick to say that Scott's decision is not a "judgement" on anyone else.

"While the governor thinks it was appropriate for him he makes no judgement on the strategic circumstances other elected officials face,'' said Brian Hughes.

 

 

 

 

Rick Scott vs. the Tea Party?

Last fall a group of conservative activists including some Tea Party leaders who backed Rick Scott for governor went into court to get a federal judge to strike down some of the state's campaign finance laws.

Flash forward several months and it turns out that backing Scott doesn't guarantee a free pass with his administration.

The state of Florida -- led by the top elections official appointed by Scott - is actually mounting a vigorous legal defense.

If the lawsuit is successful, groups could raise money to challenge constitutional amendments without having to disclose their donors or include disclaimers on any ads that they run. There are already seven amendments on the 2012 ballot.

This week both sides laid out their legal arguments that will be used to decide whether the state’s campaign finance laws are constitutional. The case is scheduled to go to trial in September but a ruling is expected without having to hold a trial.

Most of the arguments center on recent federal campaign finance rulings - including last year’s contentious Citizens United case that struck down restrictions on independent  “electioneering communications.’’

But lawyers for Secretary of State Kurt Browning -- who is now the main defendant in the lawsuit -- argued in their filings that “invalidating Florida’s challenged political committee laws will destroy the well recognized informational interest of the public to know who is speaking to them about campaign issues.”

You can read more about it here at the Florida Tribune.

There's a few surprises tucked inside this year's elections bill

A major elections bill that is now headed to the House floor came under fire for the way it changes rules for voter registration groups and how it changes law regarding voter address changes.

Critics charged that it was a "voter suppression" bill.

But the legislation - HB 1355 - has several other major provisions that didn't get much attention.

The sprawling 151-page amendment that was adopted by a House panel on Thursday also does this:

* It changes next year's primary date back to Aug. 14, which means the election won't clash anymore with the date of the Republican National Convention. The current date for the primary is Aug. 28.

* It creates a new fundraising opportunity for people who thinking about jumping into a race. Under the legislation people who are "testing the waters" could start raising money that they could use to pay for polls, travel and telephone calls. It would appear by the wording that a person doesn't have to report these contributions or expenditures unless they eventually become a candidate. The language is written in a way to suggest that the total amount of funding that can be raised would be $10,000, but it's not exactly clear.

* It includes a provision that could lead to more legal challenges against candidates. Basically the bill states that if a judge throws a candidate off the ballot because they were not properly qualified a political party cannot put someone else on the ballot in their place.

* There's some new provisions related to minor parties that could have been inspired by the Republican Party smackdown with the Tea Party last year. In case you don't remember, a group registered the name with the state and put in candidates in several legislative races. Republicans cried foul over some of the candidates and tried to remove them from the ballot. There was also a back and forth from other Tea Party groups contending that the Tea Party registered with the state had nothing to do with real Tea Party activists. Anyway, the new requirements for minor parties contain a provision that if they are not carried out promptly that the state can then decertify the party.

* It tinkers again with the laws regarding third-party groups known as electioneeering communication organizations or 527s in such a way that it would allow them to remain in the shadows longer. The groups would not have to register with the state until they spend at least $5,000 either 30 days before the primary or 60 days before the general election. The law now says that the group must file it is raises money or spends money in that same time frame.

A Senate version of this legislation is scheduled to be considered on Friday morning.

It does have differences. For example, the Senate bill moves the primary date to Sept. 4. The Senate measure also does not include the "testing the waters" provision. Instead the Senate bill includes language that says that political parties, 527s and those new "affiliated party committees" or leadership funds can conduct polls to determine the "viability" of future candidates. Those poll results can be shared with the potential candidate and it will not be considered a contribution.

The Senate bill also cuts down on the period of early voting. Instead of starting 15 days before the election it would begin 7 days. This change is sure to draw fire from many Democrats since the perception is that Republicans rely on absentee ballots, while Democrats utilize early voting.

 

 

Haridopolos and session fundraising part 2

Senate President Mike Haridopolos is expected to announce a significant fundraising haul since he jumped into the race for U.S. Senate.

The 2011 first quarter numbers for federal candidates is due by the end of the week.

Haridopolos held a series of fundraisers before session, but said recently that he stopped holding them once session started in March. An earlier post relayed an exchange about his fundraising activities and his contention that he follows the law when it comes to fundraising.

That post discussed a federal court ruling from Georgia that has been cited in the past by candidates - both Republican and Democrat - to justify raising money for federal races during session. It was also pointed out that an attorney for the Florida House raised questions about the ruling, but said it was ok for House members to raise money for federal races because House rules specifically exempt federal candidates.

After asking about it several weeks earlier, the Senate on Friday produced its own legal opinion regarding the matter that is dated from 2008.

So to be fair here's the basic premise of that opinion.

Jason Vail, then the general counsel for the Florida Senate, wrote a letter to then-Sen. Bill Posey who had asked about raising money for his Congressional bid during session.

Vail's essential opinion is that Congress own federal campaign laws supersede any state laws and he cites both a 1993 opinion and the 1996 ruling from the federal appeals court in Atlanta previously mentioned.

Vail acknowledges that the 1996 ruling, known as Teper v. Miller, may have "possible weaknesses" but he goes on to say that people are entitled to rely on advisory opinions from the Federal Election Commission and that the commission has concluded that federal law preempted the Georgia law that prohibited state legislators from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions during legislative session.

Vail acknowledges that the Georgia case involved a law and that "the main difference is that in our case, a Senate rule is involved rather than a state statute." Vail then cites a 1979 case that says federal preemption can operate against state rules "therefore I do not consider the distinction to be meaningful."

Bottom line by Vail: The federal government trumps Senate rules and that candidates for federal office are under no obligation to follow them.

Haridopolos, "the law," and fundraising during session

Senate President Mike Haridopolos has had a series of evolving answers when he keeps getting asked about fundraising for his U.S. Senate race.

When he first jumped into the race, Haridopolos said he had not yet made up his mind on whether he would raise money during the 2011 session.

Then in February he added a new answer: Ask incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson if he planned to stop raising money while the U.S. Senate was in session.

The Merritt Island Republican brushed aside any suggestion at the time that his situation was different from Nelson even though the Florida Legislature meets for just 60 days and even though Haridopolos has considerable more power as leader of the state Senate.

So I asked about it this week at his press availability and here's what he had to say:

"I’m not doing any fundraising events," Haridopolos said.

That led to this followup: "You're not doing any fundraising events. You're not making any phone calls, not talking to anybody?"

Haridopolos: "I’m running against someone who is raising money during their session right now. And as you know I follow the law, that’s exactly what I’m doing."

A short while later, I asked a follow-up question which prompted this exchange:

"You said follow the law, I’m confused here because your rules ban fundraising during the session."

Haridopolos: "Gary, you need to read the rules."

"No, I have read the rules sir."

"Let me just finish," Haridopolos said.

"No, the interpretation is based on a federal court ruling. It’s not in your rules."

Haridopolos then said that previous Democratic members of the Florida Legislature had raised money during session:

"We have now Congresswoman (Debbie) Wasserman Schultz, we have Congressman (Ted) Deutch, we have Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, we had former Congressman Ron Klein. They all chose to raise money during session. Al Lawson chose to. That is an opportunity if they choose to do it. All I said, and I said it in this room, is that my opponent Bill Nelson is raising money and has never stopped. And I’m doing the same thing. I’m choosing not to have events as you see me up here every day. You’ve seen our agenda be followed. That’s what people are concerned about and that’s what I’m focused on. I think given the pace that we are going through no one is questioning where my focus is. My focus is how do we turn around this state, how do we turn around this economy, how do we tighten our own belts and that’s exactly what I’m doing."

So let's dissect this just a bit.

In regards to the rules of the Florida Senate, you can read them for yourself:

1.361—Solicitation or acceptance of contributions; registration
and disclosure requirements
(1) During any regular legislative session, extended session, or
special session, a Senator may not directly or indirectly solicit, cause to
be solicited, or accept any contribution on behalf of either the Senator’s
own campaign, any organization described under section 527 or section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, any political committee, any
committee of continuous existence, any political party, or the campaign of
any candidate for the Senate; however, a Senator may contribute to his or
her own campaign.

So how candidates raise money during session? Because there have been series of legal opinions from the attorneys who work for the Legislature on whether the rules apply to those seeking federal office.

Most of those opinions have cited a 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from 1996 that struck down a Georgia law that barred legislators in that state from raising money during session if they were a federal candidate. The court concluded that the state could not pass laws that preempted federal campaign finance laws.

Interestingly enough, then-House general counsel Jeremiah Hawkes in 2007 issued a formal opinion where he cast doubt on the use of the federal ruling. Hawkes agreed that a 11th Circuit ruling was binding on Florida, but he added no other court had dealt with the issue and that ruling was not unanimous.

Hawkes also noted that "there does not seem to be any case that invalidates a legislative rule of procedure because of the preemption doctrine. Parliamentary bodies are given a wide range of discretion when it comes to governing the behavior of their members that can go beyond what can be regulated in statute."

Hawkes said in his opinion that House candidates were not barred from accepting contributions from federal races because the House rule was tied to a state law that did not cover federal candidates. Hawkes, however, cautioned that House members still had to follow another rule that says members should not take anything that could be construed to influence their vote.

"The fact that a solicitation was made during session could increase the likelihood that it would be perceived as influencing the member's vote,'' he wrote.

Just to note the Florida Senate does have a similar rule as well:

1.36—Improper influence
A Senator shall not accept anything that will improperly influence his
or her official act, decision, or vote.

But unlike the House rule the current Senate rule on solicitation is not linked to the state law that is limited to just state and local candidates.

 

 

 

Rivera and others used leftover campaign cash on computers, cigars and meals

This past weekend the Miami Herald reported that an ongoing investigation into U.S. Rep. David Rivera was focusing on how he spent leftover campaign funds. The Herald story focused primarily on money spent by Rivera for his state Senate campaign. (In the end, Rivera dropped out of that race and ran for Congress.)

This isn't the first time that Rivera - and other lawmakers - have been asked about how they use leftover campaign cash.

Here's a first draft of a story from 2009 that I worked on for a news organization. (The reasons that the story never ran included that too much time had passed because the story focused on 2008, that the story neeeded to be more comprehensive, etc.)

But the story did include include comments from Rivera at the time.

Florida state lawmakers have used leftover campaign money on everything from new computers, cigars and meals months and weeks after they were re-elected, a review of 2008 campaign records show.

State law requires legislators running for office to shut down their campaign accounts 90 days after an election. That law also spells out how any leftover money can be used, including letting legislators give it to charity or back to donors or use it to thank voters.

But a review showed that dozens of questionable uses by legislators, with money spent on meals, gas, cigars, and trips to places such as Best Buy and Office Depot.  

Sen. Larcenia Bullard, D-Miami, spent more than $100 at an Ethopian restaurant in Miami nearly two months after she was re-elected without opposition in June 2008. Her campaign records also show she used campaign money to pay for a meeting at the New York City hotel that features a restaurant run by famed television chef Gordon Ramsay.

Bullard, who was re-elected without opposition in June 2008, denied knowing anything about the expenses when asked.

“I have no knowledge of it at all,’’ said Bullard, who said she wasn’t in New York City last summer.

Rep. Eddy Gonzalez, R- Hialeah, spent $486 for “campaign cigars” more than a month after Election Day. Rep. Ronald Brise, D-North Miami, spent money on gas and even a $2 parking charge after he was elected without opposition last June.

Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, spent $2,386 at Best Buy on Sept. 14 to replace a “stolen computer.”  The purchase came nearly three months after she was re-elected without opposition. She said her home was burglarized and the thief took off with the computer she used to do campaign reports.

Rep. Ron Saunders, D-Key West, spent money on gas at convenience stores and money on meals at restaurants in both Tallahassee and Key West in the days after his Republican opponent withdrew from the race. Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, spent  $5,400 at Best Buy the day before the election on “information technology.” He then made two more trips to Best Buy and spent nearly $3,000 in December.

Rivera said he bought equipment, including computers and printers, to put together mailers to thank voters. He was allowed to keep the computers once he was done using it for campaign work.

“You also get to keep the paper clips you buy during  a campaign,’’ said Rivera. “I’m not the first candidate to buy a computer for a campaign.’’

 

 

 

 

 

Federal judge won't let Gov. Scott off the hook

Put this down in the "whatever happened to?" department.

A federal judge has refused to end a lawsuit that then-candidate Rick Scott used to block a key part of Florida’s public campaign finance system.

Scott last summer won a preliminary injunction from a federal appeals court that said the state could not give GOP rival Bill McCollum a dollar-for-dollar match of taxpayer money if Scott spent more than $24.9 million on his campaign.

The ruling was a blow to McCollum’s campaign who could not compete with Scott’s financial edge. Scott won the primary and then went on to spend roughly $73 million to win the governor’s race.

After Scott won the primary, his lawyers and lawyers for the Department of State asked a Tallahassee federal judge for a permanent injunction against the matching money provision.

But U.S. Judge Robert Hinkle in December shot down the request and instead put a hold on the lawsuit while the U.S. Supreme Court decides campaign finance cases from other states.

Hinkle noted that then interim Secretary of State Dawn Roberts had changed her position to fit the viewpoint of Scott.

“There is every reason to believe her change of heart was prompted solely by a good faith analysis of the evolving law in this area,” wrote Hinkle, noting the appeals court injunction. “But it is also true Ms. Roberts’ new position accords with that of the plaintiff – her soon to be new boss. The circumstances raise an issue, at least, over whether the court should act at all, and whether, if the court is going to act, the state’s interest in defending the statute should have independent representation.”

Republicans wanted to end the state’s public finance system entirely, but the amendment that would have removed it from the Florida Constitution was defeated by voters. 

Taxpayers wound up spending more than $5.82 million on campaigns in 2010.That amount could have been higher but the combination of the ruling in the Scott case - as well as Alex Sink's decision to decline any public money kept down the overall total.

Should the GOP be afraid of Rick Scott?

Shortly after Rick Scott jumped into the race for governor this past spring, Republican Party Chairman John Thrasher met with the Naples businessman.

Thrasher vowed to stay neutral in the GOP primary for governor and even offered Scott the same deal that the party offered Attorney General Bill McCollum: You can have the party pay some of your campaign expenses if you raise money for the party.

Scott said no.

Since that cordial first meeting, a lot has changed.

And it is becoming clear that with less than a month to go before Election Day that a Scott victory could do more than shake up the governor’s race. It could bring substantial upheaval for Republicans hoping to take advantage of voter anger at Democrats and the White House.

If Scott wins, it would be the second time in less than a year that the de facto leader of the party had either left or got pushed aside.  Republicans would now have to turn to a largely self-funded candidate to help raise money for the party during the crucial fall elections. Plus, Scott has his own team of people who have little reason for allegiance to the existing party leaders.

Scott insisted during a campaign swing through Northwest Florida on Monday that there’s no reason for Republican leaders to fear him winning the primary.

“I am not going to make my decisions based on emotion,’’ said Scott.

Read the full story here.

Sink refuses to take matching money for now

Several candidates running for statewide offices will be getting checks on Friday from taxpayers. But Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink won’t be one of them.

Sink, the Democratic nominee for governor, said this week that is she still hasn’t decided whether she will ask for public campaign financing money.

“I’m delaying my decision,’’ said Sink.

Sink suggested she may not make up her mind on whether to accept taxpayer help until after the Aug. 24 primary between Naples businessman Rick Scott and Attorney General McCollum.

“I’m waiting to see how the race comes out,’’ said Sink.

Sink reported on Thursday that her campaign raised $1.1 million in donations during the last quarter and that she had $5.7 million in cash on hand for her campaign at the end of the quarter, which was July 16 and not June 30.

Sink did agree last month to the campaign spending limit of $24.9 million, which made her eligible for matching funds in her race for governor. But she has not turned in the final paperwork that would allow her to receive the money.

Under the law, the first round of matching money is for contributions that candidates received from Florida residents between Sept. 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. In order to receive this money, candidates must submit a list of contributions that they wish to have matched.

Sink’s campaign, however, has the right to claim matching money for these initial contributions later.

Sink's decision to wait comes at the same time that Scott is trying to get a federal court to throw out the part of Florida's public financing system that gives a dollar-for-dollar match if a rival exceeds campaign spending limits. Scott lost his first bid last week, but his attorneys appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court in Atlanta. McCollum intervened in the lawsuit, and his own attorneys have said that if McCollum does not get matching money it could "tip" the outcome of the GOP primary, since Scott is spending millions of his own money.

Sink, however, has not asked to intervene in the case.