The Fine Print

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered

So closing the loop from two months ago, here's the 5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered (and with some thoughts about what happens next):

1. Will lawmakers agree to expand Medicaid? The answer wasn't just no. For the Florida House Republicans it was hell no (and even when the proposal moved beyond Medicaid to the idea of using federal aid to purchase private health insurance)

The decision to reject expansion probably doesn't hurt GOP lawmakers right now. (Of course that could change when all the ramifications of the rejection begin to hit home to businesses and individuals next year.)

But it could be seen as a defeat for Gov. Rick Scott in more ways that one.

He already got hammered by conservatives for his decision to go along with Medicaid expansion after being one of the most ardent opponents to "Obamacare." But with no resolution Scott continues to get hit from Democrats who say this just shows he has no leadership skills. They contend he failed to use his clout to get it passed.

The governor made sure to say that Medicaid expansion was not one of his top priorities, but in the end he remains the one who probably loses the most from both sides of the political spectrum. Not sure how this helps someone whose poll numbers remain below 50 percent.

Democrats have started going on about a special session, but so far Scott has been skeptical about such an approach. Last Friday he said that state lawmakers had made their decision and the "answer is no." Just not sure how that plays - with anyone regardless of their political persuasion.

2. Will Scott get his pay raise for teachers? Kind of.

Yes, lawmakers did put $480 million in the budget, but at first they said it couldn't take effect until June 2014 (or in other words after another session had passed.) Then top legislative leaders said that the June 2014 was Scott's idea (although an email exchange from one of Scott's top aides showed that wasn't the case.)

Lawmakers also tied the pay raise to performance standards instead of an across-the-board $2,500 pay raise. While school districts have the final say over the raise, it remains to be seen how it will be distributed.

Scott has already gone out this week on a five-stop "victory" tour to tout the pay raise.

It's worth remembering that when Scott first pushed the pay raise he wanted it with no strings attached as a reward to the good work that teachers have done so far. "We don't want a war on teachers, we want a war on failure," was the line that Scott gave at the onset of the session.

But Senate President Don Gaetz and Weatherford had their own ideas - and they kept bargaining over the fine print of how the raises would be handed out until the very end of session. They gave Scott enough for him to use for his re-election campaign, but they stopped short of giving the governor exactly what he asked for.

3.Is Jeb Bush still in charge? No. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't have influence. And it may have showed up in key places.

Let's not forget that a few weeks before session that Bush privately told House Republicans that they should reject Medicaid expansion. But Bush added an important element: Make sure to offer up an alternative deal instead of just saying no.

And while many complained that it didn't go far enough House Republicans did in fact unveil their own plan to use state dollars to provide health insurance to roughly 115,000 uninsured Floridians.

Toward the end of the session Weatherford channeled Bush when said: "In politics these days a lot of people say ‘No’ and walk away. We didn’t say no. We offered up an alternative.”

But in other places Bush's influence was not as significant. An example is the defeat again this year of the controversial "parent trigger" bill in the Florida Senate despite Bush's fervent support.

And it was Florida's other famous Republican _ U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio _ who also may have had just as much influence as his one-time mentor. The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald, for example, reported that Rubio played a role in the last-minute decision by legislators to push back the date of Florida's presidential primary. This was a big deal since it was Rubio who pushed for the change to begin with.

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? Nope.

There had been signs right before the start that the Legislature might chart a less confrontational path than in previous years. But the impasse over Medicaid expansion and disagreement over election law changes resulted in a whole lot of acrimony in the waning moments of the session.

Republicans complained that the opposition by Senate Democrats to the election bill (after it was first appeared to be a bipartisan effort) was all about politics.

House Democrats meanwhile used a procedural move to slow down the pace of the session in the final few days that left both sides fuming and scowling. And it turns out that one of the casualties may in fact be Scott's proposal to eliminate sales taxes for manufacturers who purchase the equipment. The tax cut was pushed through by Republicans who refused to answer questions or even debate the measure when it came on the evening of May 1. The result was a vote much closer than anticipated and one that turned to be under the two-thirds requirement for bills that affect local tax revenues.

Weatherford and House staff contend the tax cut bill is not in danger of falling due to a legal challenge. They offered several theories that hinge on your definition of words like "aggregate" and "insignificant."

Weatherford for his part questioned who want to sue over a tax cut. Fair enough. But it's worth wondering whether or not the vote would have been that close if House Republicans weren't scrambling to push through the tax cut bill. (The reason for the rush, of course, was that there were fears that Scott would veto bills being sought by Weatherford and Gaetz if he didn't get his tax cut proposal. Scott signed the bills within an hour of the House vote.)

5. Is this really the year for serious ethics reform? Actually, the answer to this is yes.

While the final ethics bill isn't as far-reaching as some have advocated this is a still an accomplishment given that grand juries and former governors have tried to get the Legislature to crack down on public officials in the last decade.

The final bill for the first time a mechanism that allows the Florida Commission on Ethics to initiate an investigation based upon a referral from the governor or law-enforcement agencies. (It also makes it harder for people to file complaints right before an election based on newspaper stories.)

It puts additional restrictions on lobbying and dual employment by legislators, requires posting of financial disclosure forms on the Internet, and allow the state to go after public officials who have refused to pay fines.

There are some question marks about a couple of the final provisions. But several advocacy groups have noted that the final bill is more than has been done in the area in quite some time.

What you need to know about Florida's seven-year-old gift ban

UPDATED:

Sen. Tom Lee - who has already acknowledged that his effort is likely a long shot this year - moved his  rework of the state's seven-year-old "zero tolerance" gift ban through its first committee stop on Monday.

Lee is pushing through the changes to take away some of the constant criticisms that he's heard over the years since the gift ban was first passed.

These include provisions that lawmakers "can't even take a cup of coffee" or "a bottle of water" during a meeting with a lobbyist. His proposed changes would also attempt to make it easier for a lawmaker to show up at a luncheon sponsored by a hometown group.

The kicker in Lee's bill is that it would revert everything back to current law on June 30, 2015. Lee said he put these provisions in to make sure that just in case the changes he proposed turn into big loopholes the law will automatically revert back to the way it once was.

Lee's effort is a long shot because there is no House companion bill - and he's trying to get it through his first committee during the mid-way point of the session.

But it's important to recall a bit of history here to understand why - and how - Florida got to where it is now.

The state first cracked down on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers after an investigation by State Attorney Willie Meggs in the early '90s. This came in the wake of reports that lobbyists paid for trips to various exotic locations. From a Sun-Sentinel story:

``It has gone on year after year,`` said prosecutor Anthony Guarisco of legislators vacationing luxuriously at lobbyists` expense.

The seven-page report from the grand jury reads like a deluxe travelogue as it outlines where lobbyists took legislators. The destinations included Riverview Plantation, Camilla, Ga.; Monterey,  Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Colorado; Paris; Zurich, Switzerland; and Monte Carlo, Monaco. Also on the list were several out-of-state college sports games.

Meggs wound up charging legislators for failing to report gifts worth more than $25.

State lawmakers in response to the ongoing coverage of the trips changed the law to ban all gifts worth $100 or more.

But by 2005 it was clear that a system had arisen that allowed lawmakers to still receive benefits from lobbyists. It was done in a way to sidestep disclosure requirements that mandated that lobbyists report expenditures over $25.

From a Feb. 28, 2005 Miami Herald story:

The meeting of Miami-Dade lawmakers over dinner was held at an oak-shaded French restaurant near the Capitol.

On the agenda: fighting a controversial change in school funding that could hurt urban districts.

The tab for that night at Chez Pierre: $481.89 - about $70 for each of the seven legislators in attendance. The bill was paid by Bill Rubin, a powerful lobbyist who represents, among other clients, the Broward County School Board.

Almost a year after the dinner, Rubin has yet to file the gift-disclosure form required by Florida law. Had a Miami Herald reporter not accidentally walked in on the event, the public would never have known about it.

Rubin, who did not return calls for comment, isn't alone in how he deals with Florida's disclosure requirements for lobbyists. A Herald review of three years' worth of gift-disclosure forms shows that only a few lobbyists regularly report when they hand out gifts or pay for meals worth more than $25 - the threshold for reporting for legislators or their aides.

That same story detailed that lobbyists such as Ron Book side-stepped the disclosure requirement by inviting large groups of people to receptions he paid for which brought down the per-person costs. Other lobbyists would divide the amount spent on a legislator by dividing it by the number of clients they represent.

That same year saw a series of stories in the Miami Herald about the relationship between lobbyists and legislators including:

Rows of sushi and Chinese food greeted the political power-hitters at Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla's upscale home in Tallahassee as a guitarist strummed away and the wine and liquor from the open bar poured freely.The March 9 party was in honor of Sen. Victor Crist and his new fiancee. The main bankroller for the $5,000 tab: prominent South Florida lobbyist Bob Levy, whose lengthy roster of clients includes the Professional Wrecker Operators of Florida.
  

....Because as many as 150 people were present at the party, the event would not violate Florida's ban on gifts of more than $100 to public officials. But the party is another example of the often-hidden world in the state capital where legislators have a cozy relationship with lobbyists who represent special interests.

Or this one:

A prominent Miami lobbyist, whose list of clients includes tow-truck operators, nurses, hospitals and the New World School of the Arts, is sponsoring an engagement party Tuesday for freshman Republican Rep. Anitere Flores.

All 25 members of the Miami-Dade County legislative delegation have been invited for cocktails and dinner at the New Chinatown Restaurant in South Miami to celebrate the upcoming wedding of the 29-year-old Flores, a lawyer who works at Florida International University

And this one:

A month ago The Miami Herald reported that (Sen. Mandy) Dawson had sent out a letter to lobbyists asking them to help pay the $2,500 she needed to take an economic development trip to South Africa. In her letter on official Senate stationery, Dawson asked lobbyists to send the money to the state's Legislative Black Caucus.

Two of the people she wrote to, including powerful South Florida lobbyist Ron Book, gave money to the caucus, as did a South Florida ophthalmologist and well-known fund-raiser.

And in the incident that helped propel the decision to push the ban during a 2005 special session:

The owner of Gulfstream Park and other racetracks across the country paid nearly $50,000 to fly four powerful state lawmakers to the company's headquarters in Toronto this summer, but reported the costs as a contribution to the Republican Party of Florida.

The two-day trip in July came in the midst of an ongoing effort by track owners in Broward County to persuade state legislators to spell out when slot machines can be installed there. Broward voters approved allowing four parimutuels in the county to have slot machines, but state legislators ended the 2005 spring session without passing a bill to let the tracks add the machines.

The payment came to light this week when the state Republican Party filed its quarterly contributions report....There is nothing illegal or improper about such large contributions, as long as they are controlled by the party. But they cannot be made to individual legislators: State law prohibits giving lawmakers gifts valued at more than $100.

While one of the lawmakers on the trip, former Senate President Jim King, insisted it was simply an opportunity to raise money for the state GOP, current Senate President Tom Lee said no one in the party ever authorized the fundraiser.

It's also important to note that Lee and the Senate initially did not propose a complete ban on all expenditures by lobbyists. The original bill, SB 6B, instead proposed that lobbying expenditures be restricted to food and beverage and novelty items and that detailed reports be filed detailing which legislator or legislative employee received the gift. That same legislation also would have barred convicted felons from serving as lobbyists unless they had their civil rights restored.

Tallahassee lore - which several legislators have since confirmed - has that the House did not like the reporting mechanism included in the bill and instead proposed a zero ban.

The thinking was that the Senate would not accept such a strict requirement and the status quo would remain. Instead the Senate did adopt the "zero tolerance" language and the bill was passed and sent to the governor. This final measure changed the language regarding felons to apply it only to someone convicted after Jan. 1, 2006.

Interestingly enough, that bill actually also wiped out a requirement that lobbyists twice-a-year file overall lobbying expenditure reports.

These reports not only included entertainment expenses, but also included any money spent on media advertising, research, publication etc. In its place lobbyists - excluding those working directly for local governments or associations - began reporting how much they got paid by their clients. (A legal challenge to this portion of the bill did not succeed.) But what this meant is that lobbying firms were no longer required to report how much was spent say on TV ads trying to convince lawmakers to pass or defeat a bill.

Since the bill was passed there have been plenty of articles that have pointed out the ways to get around this ban, including lawmakers using political committees known as committees of continuous existence, or relying on perks given in connection to fundraisers.

There also unsubstantiated anecdotes that a new barter system has been established where a legislator will attend an event at the home of a lobbyist and show up with a bottle of wine or some other item to cover their costs.

Obviously to use an oft-heard phrase - trying to put limits on the relationship between lobbyists and legislator is a "work in progress."

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session

Florida's GOP-controlled Legislature kicks off its annual session on Tuesday amid the backdrop of Gov. Rick Scott's aggressive move to the center as he continues to battle stagnant poll numbers. Both House Speaker Will Weatherford and Senate President Don Gaetz have their own agendas but the big focus for the next 60 days is whether or not lawmakers will help the incumbent Republican governor or damage him further as he gets prepared for what could be a very tough re-election campaign.

Here then are the 5 biggest questions of the 2013 session:

1. Will lawmakers agree to expand Medicaid? This is a decision that could have repercussions for years to come.

Scott's decision to endorse the expansion of the safety-net health care insurance program for three years to take advantage of billions in federal aid was widely criticized by conservatives and even top fellow Republicans.

The governor has said this is not one of his top priorities, but his decision to endorse the expansion right before the session means that if the Medicaid expansion is rejected it will be seen as a loss for Scott.

The House has already come out forcefully against the expansion and Weatherford is expected during his opening day remarks to articulate the rationale behind that stance. The Senate has taken no official position yet although comments in recent weeks suggested that Senate Republicans have been contemplating expansion seriously.

There are some suggestions that the House may use Medicaid expansion as a bargaining chip for other issues which if true carries its own share of risks, including bringing down the wrath of conservatives and tea party groups on to House Republicans if they change their mind over the next nine weeks. But if the House and Senate goes different routes it sets the stage for an impasse over the entire budget...which means the session may not end on time.

What could emerge is a hybrid solution: Some limited expansion of Medicaid that comes without the full funding of the federal government, but offers an answer to critics who contend the state is turning its back on roughly 1 million uninsured residents. There is also a lot of interest in the deal offered to the state of Arkansas which has been allowed by the feds to purchase private health insurance for those below 133 percent of the federal poverty line instead of placing those people into Medicaid.

2. Will Scott get his pay raise for teachers? The debate over Medicaid expansion has overshadowed what could have been the biggest storyline of the session: Will Republican legislative leaders go along with Scott's budget proposals, including his pitch for a $2,500 across the board pay raise for teachers in the state.

Scott has made it clear that the teacher pay raise - and his push to eliminate sales taxes on equipment purchased for manufacturing - are his top two priorities this year.

In his State of the State speech Scott will tell lawmakers: "Some say they are afraid that giving raises to all teachers may mean that a teacher doing a bad job gets rewarded. But, thanks to our work, we are now in a better position than ever before to reward good teachers and move bad teachers out of the classroom....We don’t want a war on teachers; we want a war on failure"

But both Weatherford and Gaetz have so far given only lukewarm endorsements of the proposal. Instead the two legislative leaders have questioned if the raises would undermine the new merit pay system that is supposed to take effect next year.

Again, we have a potentially awkward situation where the Legislature has the power to either help Scott as he moves forward - or damage him.

3.Is Jeb Bush still in charge? Former Gov. Bush visited Tallahassee a few weeks ago and he met with legislative leaders as well as an enthusiastic group of House Republicans. At the tail end of a closed door session with the House members he was asked about the contentious Medicaid expansion issue. Bush told them that they should reject the expansion, but that they should offer up an alternative deal. So far the House has followed through on part one of that advice.

But that's far from where the Bush influence ends. Bush - who battled mightily against the state's teacher union while he pushed education changes  - refused during that brief stop to publicly take a position on Scott's pay raise proposal. No one should believe he doesn't have an opinion. Instead it should be viewed that Bush adheres to the protocol of avoiding any public policy disagreements with a sitting Republican governor.

There is also expected this year to be a repeat of last year's heavily-debated "parent trigger" bill. Bush steadfastly supports the legislation, which is expected to have a smoother trip this session. So if Medicaid expansion and teacher pay raises go down and parent trigger is passed then Bush will have a better session than the current occupant of the plaza offices in the Capitol.

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? In the run-up to the start of the session (and before Monday's Medicaid expansion stance that drew the wrath of Democrats), there had been signs that the Legislature may chart a less confrontational path than in previous years.

Case in point is the proposal to revamp the state's election system. It was the supercharged 2011 Legislature that passed the controversial election law that cut short early voting days. Republicans - who enjoyed a super-majority at the time - pushed the bill through despite strong warnings from Democrats it would backfire on them.

This year we have Republicans attempting so far to work with Democrats on rolling back some of the provisions of the 2011 law and making other changes in order to avoid a repeat of last fall's election where people wound up waiting hours in line in order to vote. Democrats are not in complete agreement, but this is still a marked change from just two years earlier.

It could be that the 2012 elections - where President Barack Obama won Florida a second time and Republicans lost seats in the Legislature - might have been a wake up call that the GOP needs to moderate its message and image.

So far we have not seen a wave of legislation that is intended to fire up the Republican base heading into 2014. The normal pattern is that the off-year session is the year that lawmakers are more likely to adopt controversial items. This could be the year that breaks that trend.

5. Is this really the year for serious ethics reform? Both Weatherford and Gaetz have vowed that this is the year that legislators will enact far-reaching changes to the state's ethics laws. The Florida Senate is expected to take up - and probably pass  - the ethics bill on the first day of session.

The reason this is a big deal is that grand juries and former governors have tried to get the Legislature to crack down on public officials in the last decade but those efforts went nowhere.

The Senate bill creates for the first time a mechanism that allows the Florida Commission on Ethics to initiate an investigation based upon a referral from the governor or law-enforcement agencies. (It also makes it harder for people to file complaints right before an election based on newspaper stories.)

Weatherford for his part supports ethics reform, but he also said time and time again that ethics reform can't be done without "campaign finance" reform. Translation: We take your bill if you take our bill.

It's likely that some kind of deal will get reached and legislation dealing with both will pass. But the key is what gets dumped, altered and changed by the time legislators reach the finishing line.

Will it be the far-reaching changes that legislative leaders have vowed? Or will it be incremental changes that maintain some of the current loopholes in the system?

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.

 

 

 

Rubio: I am not under investigation nor will I ever be

The furor over the still unreleased Republican Party of Florida audit this past weekend prompted the campaign of U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist to take several shots at rival Marco Rubio. After a closed door session on Saturday, the party said it may sue to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars that Crist and former chairman Jim Greer spent on non-party related travel expenses.

Danny Kanner, a spokesman for Crist, said the party should worry about whether or not Rubio is under investigation for the way he used his Republican Party of Florida issued credit card instead of inferring that Crist may need to pay back thousands of money to the party. The Crist campaign says the move by the party is a political payback aimed at Crist, who bolted the party to run as an independent.

Rubio, however, flatly insisted on Friday that he is not under investigation by either the FBI and IRS - and he boldly predicted that he never will be.

"It's just not true,'' said Rubio following his well-received speech at the 2010 Victory Dinner at Walt Disney World. "I have never been contacted by anyone. I'm not going to because it's not true."

Rubio continued to insist that he used his RPOF credit card for “political purposes” and that the “few instances” that it wasn’t that it was “paid back at the time.”

It's clear, however, that there is some type of investigation into party finances that has been underway for some time now. And Al Hoffman, a former U.S. ambassador and top fundraiser for the party, said at the Saturday RPOF meeting that he has been questioned by both the FBI and IRS about party spending matters.

It's just another reminder that despite RPOF chairman John Thrasher's bold statement before donors and party faithful on Friday night that the "dark period" of the party is over there is still plenty of fallout that could come from Jim Greer-credit cards-Ray Sansom series of scandals.

Now it's unclear how much of this will unfold before Election Day. The trial of Sansom - the former House speaker charged with using his power as budget chairman to steer money to a political donor and developer - has now been scheduled for early next year.

Greer's trial on charges that he steered party money to a shell company that he set up with former executive director Delmar Johnson was initially scheduled for October. But Damon Chase, an attorney for Greer, said the case will not move forward until the defense team has had a chance to put under oath Thrasher, incoming Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon. They all signed a proposed severance package back in January that says that what Greer did as chairman was "proper, lawful and appropriate."

"I can't wait for the depositions where you sit them down and ask them questions," Chase said this past week. "We're going to walk into court, and go, boom, boom, boom, with the testimony."

Haridopolos, Cannon and Thrasher said they aren't bothered by the prospect of giving a deposition.

"I look forward to justice being done in that case and look forward to cooperating anyway I can,'' Cannon said.

Spilling the secrets of the Republican Party

Some of the innermost secrets of the Republican Party of Florida spilled out in the open on Tuesday as prosecutors released documents that raise additional questions about the ongoing financial scandal that has resulted in the arrest of the former party chairman.

Jim Greer, the man handpicked by Gov. Charlie Crist to lead the party, was arrested earlier this month on six felony charges that he steered party money into a shell company that he set up with another top party official. Greer, who was ousted from his post in January, has said he is innocent.

But the documents that were released -- and the potential witness list for Greer's trial -- could have extensive reverberations for many top elected officials. Crist is listed as a potential witness, as are many other party officials and even a potential future House speaker.

Keep reading here for the full story.

Among the details:

Crist gave investigators a written affidavit saying he knew nothing about Greer's involvement in Victory Strategies, the company that Greer set up and received money from the party.

A 56-minute phone call between Greer and former executive director Delmar Johnson where Greer says he Crist and Greer talked about Crist's independent bid for U.S. Senate days before Crist went on Fox News and said he staying with the Republican Party.

Greer says on that same phone call that he and House speaker in waiting Rep. Chris Dorworth talked about whether the party intended to use Victory Strategies - the company that Greer used to get payment from the party - as a "blackmail mechanism" to get out of paying Greer a severance agreement.

Johnson - who in May signed a deal that keeps him out of prison for helping investigators - repeatedly reassures Greer on the phone call that he's not turning on him. "You never have to worry about me,'' Johnson lies to Greer at one point.

Greer talks about how that "idiot Thrasher," a reference to party chairman John Thrasher, will "try to use that anybody as a scape goat." He calls Thrasher, Attorney General Bill McCollum, and incoming Senate president Mike Haridopolos and incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon the "four horsemen."

Johnson on the call says that McCollum "played a much role behind the scenes than we realize."

While some party officials say they knew nothing about Greer's involvement with Victory Strategies, one party employee says she told to "keep quiet" about the arrangement.

Investigators seized items from Greer's home when he was arrested in early June and included in the haul were American Express records for Cannon, Senate President Jeff Atwater, former House speaker Allan Bense, former Senate President Ken Pruitt, former RPOF chairman Carole Jean Jordan, and Richard Corcoran, a former top aide to Marco Rubio. Investigators also seized invoices/payments for other party officials and Dane Eagle, a top aide to Crist.

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.

Legislator will try one more time to get lobbyists to tell the truth

Sen. Alex Villalobos has had a change of heart.

Just two weeks ago the Miami Republican said he was giving up and had no intention on filing his "Truth in Government" Act that would require those testifying before the Legislature to swear to tell the truth.

But he said he changed his mind after talking to Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach. He said the Senate president supports having lawmakers push ahead with several bills that deal with ethics, including some of those being sponsored by Sen. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. So Villalobos refiled his bill, which would make it a crime to lie to a legislative committee. It would not apply to legislators and children.

"I see an opportunity given the president's desire to move bills that address ethics and corruption,'' said Villalobos this week.

There has been a renewed interest regarding ethics in the wake of a long list of scandals in the last year - including the arrest of Scott Rothstein and Alan Mendelsohn. Atwater was among those who met with agents from the FBI last year to discuss issues surrounding Mendelsohn.

Gelber said he too has talked with Atwater and he feels confident that some of his bills have a shot of success. Gelber has filed no less than eight bills dealing with campaign contributions, ethics, and the legislative process. Just last week he filed a measure, SB 1554, that would make it crime for any public servant to fail to advertise a solicitation for procurement.

"My sense is that the Senate president recognizes the need to do something,'' said Gelber. "I'm hopeful that a great number of bills will get a hearing if not approved."

Grand jury report prompts Senate President to open up budget process

Senate President Jeff Atwater, responding in part to a critical grand jury report that blasted how state legislators craft the annual state budget, said on Wednesday that within the next two weeks he will institute additional changes to the budget process for the 2010 session to make it more “transparent.”

While the changes have not been finalized, Atwater said they could include creating timelines for when information will be made public and putting in guidelines for discussions between the Senate President and the House Speaker. “You are going to see things exposed a little longer,’’ said Atwater.

Atwater added that he also may be willing to open up meetings where legislative leaders reach an agreement on allocations, or the actual amounts of money set aside for each area of the budget. These changes, however, would only apply to the Senate this year and would need to be formally added to the Senate rules in order to become permanent.

 

Last year a Leon County grand jury indicted former House Speaker Ray Sansom for steering money to a project that was sought by a Panhandle developer and political supporter. The grand jury in its report also criticized the secretive nature of how legislators have shaped the annual spending plan. That prompted lawmakers in 2009 to hand out and then discuss the lengthy provisions that appear both in the actual budget itself and in the so-called conforming bills that accompany the budget.

 

 Atwater conceded that the grand jury report has prompted the changes.

 

"I think their feedback was valuable to us to say, 'This is the people's budget,' why shouldn't we go an extra mile to make sure they see it,'' said Atwater.

 

Tell the truth in the Legislature? Not this year, maybe not ever

State Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami, is giving up.

For the last several years Villalobos has tried to push a bill through the Florida Legislature that would have required those who appear before legislative committees to swear to tell the truth.

The legislation was an outgrowth of the contentious 2003 series of special sessions on medical malpractice where the Florida Senate eventually decided to place several officials - including the head of the state's main malpractice insurer - under oath. Villalobos concluded that the testimony before legislators would change dramatically if everyone who testifies would be put on notice that they could be charged with a crime if they lie. His bill was primarily directed at lobbyists since it exempted legislators from the requirement.

But Villalobos legislation has constantly gotten bogged down. Last year House leaders refused to move his bill beyond one committee.

So Villalobos has decided he won't file the bill again during his final session.

"I've never gotten traction,'' said Villalobos.

Villalobos said his inability to get the legislation seriously considered sends a message that lying in the halls of the Florida Legislature is no big deal.

"It says people can go to the Capitol and lie and nothing will happen to them,'' said Villalobos.