The Fine Print

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.

Alex Sink: Will she or won't she?

It turns out that Rick Scott, the Naples businessman running against Attorney General Bill McCollum in the GOP primary for governor, may not be the only candidate this year who turns down "welfare for politicians."

With just days left before the state hands out its first round of public campaign financing, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink has yet to turn in the paperwork that would make her eligible for matching money.

Last month the Democratic candidate for governor did agree to abide by the campaign spending limit of $24.9 million - and she made the initial request for matching funds in her race for governor.

But even back then her campaign made it clear that no final decision had been made about whether to actually accept the money.

And that appears to still be the case as of now.

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.

A spokeswoman for the Secretary of State's office on Monday confirmed that Sink has not done this. If Sink's campaign fails to turn in documentation by noon on Friday, then the campaign will not receive any money this week although the campaign has the right to claim matching money for these initial contributions later.

Sink's campaign has not responded to questions as to whether or not the CFO plans to officially ask for matching money.

Sink's decision, of course, comes as 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 the matching money it could "tip" the outcome of the GOP primary since Scott is spending millions of his own money.

Sink, by contrast, has not asked to intervene in the case. But that didn't stop U.S. Judge Robert Hinkle from asking a pivotal question during last week's hearing. Hinkle wanted to know what happens if Scott does as expected and blows through the spending cap before the primary. Hinkle asked lawyers representing the Secretary of State's office whether other candidates - and he mentioned Sink by name - would be eligible for the dollar for dollar match now as well. Or Hinkle inquired further, would Sink and others have to wait after the primary? Hinkle said it appeared to him that the law regarding this matter was vague.

The lawyers for the Secretary of State couldn't answer the question. They noted that there was only one other time the spending limits been exceeded and that no one had really contemplated the limit being breached during the primary. (That one previous time, of course, was the 1994 election between Jeb Bush and Gov. Lawton Chiles. It was Bush, who is endorsing McCollum, who repeatedly called the state's public financing system "welfare for politicians.")

But while the lawsuit rages on this remains a key question for Sink's campaign to consider especially since everyone agrees the spending limit applies to the entire election and not just the primary.

Is it fair for McCollum to get money now, use it to beat Scott and deny Sink the same amount of matching money for the general election? Or if Scott wins the primary, does Sink only get a match of what he spends after he defeats McCollum?

What Sink does in the days ahead could be one of the most important of her entire campaign.

Scott files lawsuit that could blow up the election

Rick Scott, the maverick candidate for governor challenging Attorney General Bill McCollum in the GOP primary for governor, filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday that could cause serious problems for his opponent - and help his campaign at the same time.

Scott wants a court to strike down Florida's public campaign financing system, which gives taxpayer money to statewide candidates who agree to abide by spending limits. (Background here.)

Scott - whose lawyers cite a recent case from Arizona as a reason for the court should act - just as importantly is also asking that the federal court put in an injunction that prevents the state from handing out any money to candidates who plan to participate in the system. This would not just affect McCollum, but Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and other candidates as well. Candidates are supposed to get their first checks from the state later this month.

Scott, who is using his own money to bankroll his campaign and is opposed to public financing, contends that the current system violates his First Amendment rights because it allows for candidates to get a dollar for dollar match of taxpayer money if Scott exceeds the $24.9 million spending limit.

Scott is coming close to that cap and has even set up a third-party organization or 527 in order to find a way to get around it. But while a 527 can pay for television ads it can't pay for other items that pay for the day to day operations of a campaign. Scott says in his lawsuit he has already spent $21 million and will "likely " exceed the $24.9 million cap. But he also says he has scaled back his television and radio advertising and other expenses because he is coming close to it.

The law "penalizes individuals who exercise their well-established First Amendment right to spend funds for campaign speech by directly providing opponents with state money to counteract and diminish that speech," reads the lawsuit.

It further reads that "Mr. Scott, a political newcomer, has expended substantial amounts of his personal resources to introduce himself to voters, articulate his policy positions, and engage in other voter education efforts. These efforts have so far proven successful as Florida voters have responded positively to Mr. Scott's message of change." But the lawsuit states giving state money to his opponents will "counteract and diminish Mr. Scott's own campaign speech."

McCollum's campaign immediately put out a statement denouncing Scott's actions: 

"It should come as no surprise to anyone that Rick Scott, a man who oversaw the most massive Medicare fraud scheme in history, just can’t seem to play by the rules,'' said campaign manager Matt Williams.

“He’s spending the millions he ripped off of taxpayers to fund a self image repair campaign that has stopped at nothing to cover his past misdeeds and distort Bill McCollum’s record of conservative leadership. Rick Scott will have his day in court, but all this legal wrangling just proves what we already know. No amount of money – not even the more than 20 million Rick Scott has spent to date – will cover his record of fraud, hypocrisy and doublespeak"

Rick Scott's big money gift to McCollum and Sink

Millions of dollars have already been spent during Florida's wild election season and tens of millions will likely be spent between now and November.

But who could be footing a big part of the bill?

Florida taxpayers.

Four years ago, candidates running for governor and other state offices received more than $11 million from taxpayers thanks to a state public campaign financing law that some Republicans have called "welfare for politicians."

But that amount could double or even triple this year because of the millions that health care executive and Republican Rick Scott is pouring into the race. Scott's rivals for governor could get a dollar-for-dollar match from taxpayers if Scott keeps up his relentless and expensive round of television advertising.

Candidates don't have to take the money, but Attorney General Bill McCollum says he will. Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink says she might.

Scott is ineligible for the matching money because he has put so much of his own money into the campaign, but his campaign says he is opposed to taxpayer financing of elections and it blasted McCollum for taking the money.

"He has so little support for his ideas and his candidacies that he can't raise money,'' said Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for Scott's campaign.

McCollum, however, not only backs public campaign financing but he is now opposed to Amendment 1, the measure that state lawmakers put on the ballot to repeal the entire system. In an interesting little twist, his own Lake County chairman is the lawmaker who sponsored the amendment and calls public financing a "gross misuse" of tax dollars.

Keep reading here.

Will Charlie today help or hurt McCollum's campaign for governor?

(Update: Gov. Charlie Crist on Friday evening announced that he signed HB 131 into law.)

While everyone is waiting to see what Gov. Charlie Crist does with the $70.4 billion budget there is another bill on his desk that could have a big impact on the upcoming elections.

Crist must also act Friday on HB 131, the lengthy elections bill. The bill contains several changes to law, including giving the power of the Secretary of State to order recounts and to make it clear that state election laws always trump local ordinances.

Crist, however, is apparently divided over what to do with the bill because it includes a provision he opposes.

The legislation delays from 2012 until 2016 a requirement that disabled voters have access to voting machines that use paper ballots. Former Secretary of State Kurt Browning testified to lawmakers that Crist did not like the delay but it was pushed by the state's election supervisors who don't want to incur the cost right now of buying new machines.

For candidates like Attorney General Bill McCollum the big provision in the bill, however, is the language that would re-regulate 527s after a federal court struck down the state's previous regulations.

Why? Because without the bill it could become illegal in Florida for campaigns to coordinate with third-party groups that launch attack ads.

This week a group known as Alliance for America's Future is launching ads that go after GOP rival Rick Scott. While McCollum's campaign has not acknowledged its involvement McCollum's own ad man is helping with the organization.

The elections bill would require such groups to register with the state and disclose finances if the groups runs ads 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election.

But just as importantly the bill would resolve issues raised last August by Tallahassee attorney Mark Herron, one of which is whether or not 527 groups can coordinate with candidates if the underlying law regulating these organizations is wiped out.

The Division of Elections has yet to issue a formal opinion dealing with Herron's questions. And Browning even said in April that the opinion has been put on hold pending final action by legislators.

Herron's 5-page letter also asked whether any ads run by 527 organizations is considered a contribution to a candidate's campaign if the 527 organization runs an ad that either attacks or supports a candidate in such a way that it is the "functional equivalent of express advocacy," which is a new definition cited recently in federal court decisions.

The upshot is that coordination will likely remain legal - and 527 ads won't count as contributions - if Crist signs HB 131. But if Crist vetoes the bill then 527 organizations - which are not bound by the same $500 limits as candidates - may not be able to do anything in concert with statewide candidates like McCollum or even legislative candidates. That could be a big deal during an election season when there are candidates using large amounts of their own money.

A spokeswoman for McCollum's campaign confirms that the Attorney General supports the bill.

Priceless: $80,000 for Greer Force One and $35k for party purge

 

So here's the gift that keeps on giving. When Jim Greer was still chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, Greer and then executive director Delmar Johnson decided that a good way to be "eco-friendly" and save some serious cash was to send out an electronic Christmas card instead of real ones on paper.

But one of the early drafts drawn up the party decided to poke fun at the whole credit card mess and even the contributions of Ponzi fund schemer Scott Rothstein. There's funny little statements about Greer's airplane travels and security detail to "orchestrate the party purge" as well as references to former House Speaker Ray Sansom's American Express expenses as well as Greer's time at the Breakers.

Greer of course was forced to step down from the party earlier this year and is now the subject of a criminal investigation into whether he steered party money to a company he controlled. Greer has insisted he has done nothing wrong and that the party is just trying to get out of paying what the party promised to pay him if he stepped down.

"It was just purely an idea,'' explained Katie Gordon Betta, a spokeswoman for the party about the proposed Christmas card. "We kind of liked the idea of doing a spoof on the credit cards."

Here's the card that the party wound up sending out instead.

Browning wants lawmakers to clear up campaign finance mess

While there is a lot of talk about the veto of SB 6, don't forget about the fallout from Gov. Charlie Crist's other veto this session.

Lawmakers included regulation of 527s, so-called for the section of the IRS code that covers them, in a lengthy elections bill that Crist vetoed earlier this month. The Legislature needed to act because a federal judge last year struck down the state law that covered this groups which also go by the name of "electioneering communications organizations."

Crist vetoed the bill, however, because it allowed for the creation of "leadership funds," or separate fundraising accounts that could be set up by legislative leaders.

Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning is holding out hope that state lawmakers may still enact some type of regulation of these third-party political groups before the session ends on April 30.

And he's got a reason to. That's because Browning's office has yet to issue a formal opinion on how to deal with these 527 organizations heading into this year's election season.

Last August Tallahassee attorney Mark Herron asked that state Division of Elections tell him how election law would work after the federal court ruling.

"The reason we haven't released it is because of the legislative session,'' said Browning.

Herron's 5-page letter asked whether candidates could still coordinate with 527 organizations and whether it is considered a contribution to a candidate's campaign if the 527 organization runs an ad that either attacks or supports a candidate in such a way that it is the "functional equivalent of express advocacy," which is a new definition cited recently in federal court decisions.

This is a big question heading into a wide-open election season with the governor and all three Cabinet posts on the ballot.

But legislators are still stinging from Crist's veto of HB 1207. When asked about 527s earlier this week, Sen. JD Alexander, R-Lake Wales and chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections committee, said earlier this week he had no plans to take up the issue this session.

“We did that already,’’ said Alexander. “We’re working on budgets. We thought we put a good piece of work together that provided significantly improved transparency and protections."

But Browning said that legislators could still add the 527 provisions to a comprehensive elections bill that is still moving through the Legislature. A Senate panel is scheduled to take up SB 900 on Monday.

Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, has filed a strike-everything amendment that would remove many provisions from the bill, including a provision that would make it clear state election law trumps any local ordinances dealing with elections. Gardiner’s amendment would also remove a part of the bill that would give Browning the authority to authorize voting recounts in some instances. His amendment does not address 527’s at all.

And Gardiner's amendment would also wipe the provision in SB 900 that would have eliminated a requirement in state law that campaign reports include credit card statements. As noted elsewhere, the state Division of Elections has allowed parties to bypass this requirement.

Free plane rides and other tidbits of the leadership funds bill

(UPDATE: Gov. Charlie Crist on Tuesday afternoon vetoed HB 1207, saying that he was concerned about the leadership funds portion of the bill.)

(UPDATE: Post clarifies the restriction on how much can be spent before the 28 days before the election.)

Gov. Charlie Crist must decide today whether or not to sign, veto or let become law without his signature HB 1207 - the campaign finance measure that the GOP-controlled Legislature sent to him a week ago.

But while there has been a lot written about the key function of the bill - the creation of "leadership funds" or affiliated party committees - there may be some elements that aren't well known.

So here's a few other things you may not know about the legislation:

1. Want to give a free plane ride to the next Senate president or House speaker despite Florida's four-year-old gift ban? Well you can now. Just like donors can give in-kind contributions - including plane rides - to the political parties they will able to do the same with the affiliated party committees. Legislative leaders must disclose a written acceptance of the in-kind donation along with their normal campaign reports. But that requirement is not required of any in-kind donations of food and drink worth up to $1,500 which is "consumed at a single setting."

The gift has to "be accepted" by the legislative leader and it must be for the "direct benefit" of the leadership fund. A "direct benefit" includes but is not limited to fundraising or furthering the objectives of the affiliated party committee. Who decides whether the gift has a direct benefit? Well that would be the legislative leader since they are the only ones authorized to accept the in-kind donation.

2. Want to ask current legislators to pony up money to their own legislative leaders? That too is tucked into this bill. Just like legislators have the right to hand over any unused campaign donations to the party this bill would allow state House members to give $10,000 to the affiliated party committees and would allow Senate members to give up to $30,000 to them.

3. It has already been reported that the leadership funds can give up to $50,000 to any legislative candidate. That's true, but the changes go a bit beyond that. The new bill removes the restriction that no more than half of that amount - or $25,000 - can be given to a candidate prior to the four weeks before an election. And that change applies not just to affiliated party committees but the political parties as well.

But wait, there's more. This bill not only lets legislative leaders give money to legislators - it also allows them to give money to people running for governor, for chief financial officer, for attorney general and for agriculture commissioner. And the limit is not $50,000. It's $250,000. So if the incoming Senate President or House Speaker wants to help out a particular statewide candidate they can do it.

And guess what? That $250,000 limit DOES NOT apply to polling, cost of campaign staff, consultants etc. This means a candidate for statewide office could bankroll key chunks of their entire campaign with the help of a legislative leader.

Additionally a current restriction in law that says that parties can spend no more than $125,000 prior to the final four weeks has also been removed.

4. One of the key arguments for those who favor the bill is that it would remove a current legal fiction regarding contributions to political parties. The bill allows the public to see what donations are given to parties on behalf of legislative leaders. The argument is that this will create more transparency and get rid of the wink and a nod that goes on now whenever a legislative leader raises money for the party.

 But it's worth pointing out that there is no requirement to set up these affiliated party committees. Some people who raise money for the Florida Democratic Party have suggested that it be would politically foolhardy to have a legislative leader of the minority party actually show what money he or she raised. Donors who give to the minority party leader would be then be placed under pressure by the majority party to curtail their contributions.

Rep. Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland and sponsor of the bill, dismissed that idea. He said that both parties are keenly aware of which donors give money to the parties on behalf of legislative leaders.

5. Despite all the controversy surrounding the leadership fund aspect, the bill does attempt to re-regulate third party groups known as 527s or electioneering communication organizations. It requires these groups to register with the state if they plan to run ads, do direct-mail or call voters 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. The ads must include a recognized candidate for office and the purpose of the ad is "of no reasonable interpretation other than to appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

You may recall that Florida's current law regarding these third party groups was struck down by a federal judge last year. This bill attempts to reenact that law by removing the parts that ran into trouble. The new version mirrors similar restrictions that exist at the federal level, although it does go a bit further with the requirement that the law apply to "direct mail' advertisements along with television and radio ads.

Will RPOF financial scandal doom fundraising bill?

Wow. Talk about bad timing.

While the Republican Party of Florida financial scandal unravels into a web of lawsuits and criminal investigations, the clock is ticking on a major fundraising and campaign finance bill that now sits on the desk of Gov. Charlie Crist.

Crist has until next Tuesday to veto, sign or let HB 1207 become law without his signature.

The bill has two main components: One part would re-regulate 527 organizations in Florida, also known as electioneering communication organizations. Florida's previous law that required these groups to register and report their financial information was struck down last year by a federal judge. While there have been some quibbles about the wording of this part of the bill - and whether or not it still goes too far to withstand judicial scrutiny - no one has come out in opposition.

It's the other part of the legislation that has drawn fire from Democrats and others.

The legislation would create leadership funds, or "affiliated party committees." These would essentially allow the Senate President, House Speaker and minority party leaders set up accounts that would take unlimited campaign donations and then give the legislative leaders the power to control spending out of these accounts. The argument is that this will allow the public to see which donors are giving money because of requests from legislative leaders instead of co-mingling it in party accounts with other donations.

So then ask yourself. What advantage or disadvantage would Crist get out of signing this bill right now? How would it look and how would it impact his campaign for U.S. Senate?

Republican legislative leaders want it obviously. But it's not like they have been extremely friendly to Crist's legislative agenda this session.

Meanwhile pressure is starting to mount as some people start calling on Crist to veto the bill. State Sen. Dan Gelbercontended that the bill would create "cash register politics" in Florida and Gelber went so far as to assert that staff that run these new funds could solicit money during the session. (Legislative rules bar legislators from soliciting money.)

Now throw in the whole mess with Greer. Crist handpicked Greer for the job as party chairman, but now there is a situation where two incoming legislative leaders - the ones who would get to set up the accounts - now stand accused of supporting a secret severance package with Greer and even offering him "hush money." Party officials say the agreement was never executed and legislative leaders say the hush money allegation is false.

Crist's candidacy has been asserting lately that voters can't trust Rubio - because of the way he handled his own fundraising activities and his credit card expenses. (Yes, Rubio has denied that he did anything wrong, although there is a portion of his expenses that have yet to be totally explained.)

Rep. Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland and the sponsor of the bill, argues that if anything the Greer situation is exactly why more "transparency" is needed.

"I would think the governor would approve having more transparency and accountability,'' said McKeel on Thursday.

But McKeel also acknowledged that he has not talked to anyone in the governor's office nor does he have any idea what Crist plans to do.

Crist could veto the bill and lawmakers could always hand Crist his first ever veto override as governor. That is a bit far-fetched but it certainly would generate some headlines.

Rubio was not alone in having expenses picked up by political committee

There is a report on Saturday that goes into great detail about how former House Speaker Marco Rubio used political committees to "spend big money with little scrutiny."

The Times/Herald went into great detail about Rubio's use of two committees of continuous existence and noted that a lot of money was spent on expenses but not political contributions like committees set up by other legislators. The story also notes that a great deal of money went for unidentified credit card expenses.

But while Rubio's use of CCE money may have been out of scale compared to other legislators, he is hardly alone in having expenses picked up by CCE's nor is this the first time his use of CCE has been noted.

A 2003 story in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune found that more than $2.8 million had flowed into those accounts over a four-year period from special interest donors and the money being used for campaign contributions and to "reimburse expenses largely incurred by legislators themselves."

The story noted how money was used for dry-cleaning bills, trips to Sam's and Costco, oil changes and how an account controlled by House Speaker Johnnie Byrd spent money on "literature/periodicals" and "office equipment."

One lawmaker even used his CCE to pay rent for his home in Tallahassee.

That story also disclosed that at the time some lawmakers - including Rubio - failed to follow IRS regulations and reveal information about donors in federal filings. State law back in 2003 allowed the names of some CCE donors to be kept secret in state filings.

A March 7, 2004 story in The Miami Herald detailed how Rubio spent $6,665 "none of it out of his own pocket" to charter a plane so he could make a meeting in Tampa to try to nail down his bid for speakership.

A February 2007 story in The Miami Herald reported that a CCE controlled by Sen. Mike Fasano had reimbursed him thousands of dollars in expenses including $550 for a tab for a meeting held at a steakhouse at the Saddlebrook Resort north of Tampa.

This 2009 story from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune pointed that lawmakers were still using CCE's for various expenses. Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, for example was reimbursed nearly $25,000 for travel expenses over a two and a half year period. Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, has also said travel expenses picked up. Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, had hotel rooms, taxi rides and airplane rides paid for out of CCE.

That same story also pointed out the Florida Hispanic Legislative Caucus - of which Rubio was a member - used money it got from contributions on various expenses. The caucus, for example, spent nearly $1,900 dollars on meals from three Tallahassee restaurants on the last day of the 2008 session where Rubio was speaker.