The Fine Print

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.

Does Florida have a voter fraud problem?

As the GOP-controlled Legislature pushes ahead with a widespread elections bill, those pushing the bill deny that it has anything to do with targeting voters who could be voting Democratic in next year's crucial presidential election.

Instead the rallying cry behind the bill has been that the legislation is needed in order to combat voter fraud.

"We have to protect this election process and operate it correctly so that result has integrity for everyone of you,'' said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala and sponsor of the House version - HB 1355. "We have to protect this election process and operate it correctly so that result has integrity for everyone of you. If the vote matters as much to you as it does to me, why don’t you want to protect it?"

Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando, got up on the House floor and said that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has repeatedly been called into look at voter fraud across the state.

Eisnaugle did not cite any specific examples during his House floor remarks. But when asked about it later, a House press person produced four documents.

Several of them dealt with allegations of voter registration fraud. The proposed elections bill would impose new restrictions on third-party voter registration groups, a move which has brought the threat of litigation from the League of Women Voters, which successfully sued in the past over restrictions.

Eisnaugle produced a news story from 2004 that cited that FDLE has said up a statewide task force to investigate allegations regarding absentee ballots and other types of voter fraud. FDLE did in fact set up this task force on the eve of the 2004 elections - but that task force did not wind up arresting anyone or charging anyone.

Arrests were made in 2009 in connection to voter registration fraud and Eisnaugle included a Fox News story about it.

According to an FDLE release associated with the same arrests, 11 people connected with the now-defunct Association for Community Reform Now (ACORN) were charged with falsifying voter registration forms. But that press release also points out that it was ACORN itself that discovered problems with the registration forms from 2008 and reported it to the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, which then passed on the information to FDLE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

"Quality control workers at ACORN noticed that some of the phone numbers listed on the application were out of service or incorrect and that the handwriting or signatures on the applications were similar,'' states the release.

The news story cited by Eisnaugle includes a statement from Katherine Fernandez Rundle that no one associated with the false forms actually voted.

Eisnaugle also cited a voter registration form that included the name Mickey Mouse on it. A St. Petersburg Times story from 2008 does say that someone did fill out the form with that name on it. But the Times story also notes that the voter registration form was rejected by Orange County elections officials.

Lastly, Eisnaugle included a report from the Equal Justice Foundation regarding voter fraud and FDLE. The organization is based in Colorado and also has information on its website that says no-fault divorce laws were orchestrated by radical feminists and borrowed from the Soviets and that women are just as likely, or more likely to engage in domestic violence as men.

The EJI report deals primarily with allegations regarding absentee ballot fraud which was in fact widely documented back in '90s and was the primary reason that a mayoral election in Miami was overturned. The report cited by Eisnaugle even calls absentee ballots the "tool of choice" in fraud.

Here's a copy of the report: Download Voter fraud report

It's worth nothing that absentee ballot allegations were also at the center of an FDLE investigation involving elections in Orlando where Mayor Buddy Dyer was accused of paying someone to collect absentee ballots. (A law put in place following the Miami election.) The charges, however, against Dyer were dismissed by prosecutors who said there was "no evil intent" in relation to the incident.

 The House bill that was passed last week does not make widespread changes to absentee ballots.

It does include a provision that all absentee ballots must now include a warning on them that tell voters that signature on absentee ballots must match those on file at the elections office or the ballot won't count. The bill also includes a new provision that limits the ability of a court to overrule a canvassing board decision to reject an absentee ballot.

But the biggest change that could affect absentee ballot fraud is a controversial change that forces someone who wishes to change their address on Election Day to vote a provisional ballot.

The argument behind this change is to make sure that no one can vote twice - once by absentee and then again on Election Day. It would appear to affect college students since this prohibition only applies to those who are changing their address from one county to another.

Florida law, however, also requires that provisional ballots must be cast in the right precinct or the ballot is invalid. So there is a chance that a college student who shows up at the wrong polling place will not have their ballot counted.

Now, there have been news reports in the past decade that have found examples of people being registered to vote in two different states such as both New York and Florida and a New York Daily News article from 2004 found instances where it appeared that people did in fact vote in both places.

But what about voting absentee and then changing your address on Election Day?

Chris Cate, a spokesman for the Florida Secretary of State's office, said in an e-mail that "no cases of multiple voting in Florida during the 2008 or 2010 election have been referred to the Department of State. However, it’s possible that a Supervisor of Elections could have made a complaint without our knowledge. They have the ability to refer cases directly to the local state attorney."

Cate in a subsequent e-mail also pointed out that the state's electronic voting database is designed to prevent "voter registration fraud."

This is one element of the ongoing debate that has not received a lot of conversation but Florida now a list of every registered voter in the state. This database is supposed to be constantly updated to help the state delete people who have died or removed if they are convicted of a felony. The Department of State is also supposed to look for duplicate registrations.

Additionally, the Republican-led Legislature previously put in place the so-called "no match" requirement that is also designed to cut down on voter registration fraud. It states that the information on a voter registration application must match state and federal databases or the person is not eligible to vote.

The law was challenged but it was eventually upheld by a federal appeals court.

In an opinion piece, Secretary of State Kurt Browning in 2008 wrote: "This is a good law that will help our voter rolls achieve more accuracy and less fraud, while creating minimal inconvenience for prospective voters."

 

 

 

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.

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.

Charlie Crist's defection from GOP could still leave a mark

If you believe the multitude of polls out there right now, the consensus is that Gov. Charlie Crist's bid to become Florida's next U.S. Senator is doomed.

Crist bolted the GOP last April to run as an independent candidate after it was clear that Marco Rubio would defeat him in a Republican primary. At first he surged ahead in the polls but now all of them having him trail Rubio by double-digits.

Yet Crist's decision to leave his party could still have a ripple effect after he's gone.

That's because a new report released this week by the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee recommends making it harder for candidates to switch parties and avoid primaries. While there is no guarantee that a bill will be filed, committee reports are often seen as a precursor to future legislation.

The report suggests that Florida lawmakers should change the law so that candidates cannot change their parties less than a year before qualifying begins. It notes that "requiring a candidate to make an ultimate decision on party membership or NPA status 16-18 months before the general election would effectively eliminate or drastically reduce last-minute, self-serving decisions regarding candidacy."

The same report also suggests that Florida needs a “sore loser” law that would ensure that no future candidate could lose a primary and then still show up on the general election ballot. The Senate report says that a close look at the existing law shows that there is no actual “prohibition” on a candidate running as someone with no party affiliation following a primary defeat. U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut ran as a third-party candidate in 2006 after he was defeated in the Democratic primary.

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

 

 

Next Senate President not bothered by a no vote on all amendments

Florida voters were supposed to get a crammed ballot this November that would ask them to weigh in on everything from school class sizes to federal health care reform and property taxes.

But a flurry of lawsuits coming from opponents of the amendments -- most of which were placed on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature -- could block many of those proposals from being voted on this fall.

Six of nine proposed constitutional amendments on the 2010 ballot are tied up in court fights. And two measures have already been tossed from the ballot by lower court judges, although each of the cases probably will not be resolved until the state Supreme Court rules.

The latest to fall came Friday when a Leon County judge threw out a proposed amendment that advocates said would have been a boost to Florida's ailing real estate industry.

One lawyer involved in the fights is putting the blame on state lawmakers for crafting amendments that he says are intended to "deceive" the public. But Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, asserted that lawmakers have done all their work in the "sunshine."

But Haridopolos said with all the confusion surrounding the amendments voters could wind up rejecting all of them. And he says he has no problem with that.

"I would be fine if everyone voted no on all the amendments."

Here's the full story at the Sarasota Herald Tribune.

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.