The Fine Print

"The governor clearly doesn't believe in it."

Gov. Rick Scott, a sharp critic of the federal stimulus, has taken down a state-controlled website intended to inform taxpayers where the money was going and whether it was creating jobs.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist — whose support of the federal stimulus helped doom his campaign for U.S. Senate — launched the website in March 2009, a few weeks after he hugged President Barack Obama on the president's visit to Florida touting the stimulus.

But now users are redirected to a single page on Scott's website. The page contains copies of letters to federal authorities from state and local officials certifying that the state is spending the money on projects such as roads, upgrades to water systems and renovations to a jail.

The old website included detailed spreadsheets that showed how much each state agency received and spent. It also included lists of how many jobs the state is reporting to federal authorities that were saved or created due to stimulus spending.

Scott spokesman Brian Burgess said it should be no surprise that the governor took down the website.

"We decided we wouldn't do anything to promote the stimulus program," Burgess said. "The governor clearly doesn't believe in it."

Keep reading the rest of the story at the Herald-Tribune here.

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.

 

 

Budget speak for dummies

The House and Senate have passed rival versions of the state budget and the negotiations between Republican leaders have already begun, although out of sight and quietly right now.

When you are talking about spending close to $70 billion there is a lot of moving parts. And with talk of deficits, shortfalls, budget cuts, trust funds, allocations it can be a bit overwhelming.

Consider this a quick and easy guide to the main concepts in play with the promise that more may come later:

IT'S A BUDGET SHORTFALL, NOT A DEFICIT: Sometimes there is a temptation to use the terms shortfall and deficit interchangeably. But it's not accurate. Florida has a projected $3.75 budget shortfall not a deficit. In other words, it's not that revenue is dropping. It's that the revenue is not rising fast enough to meet all the projected budgetary needs.

Part of those budgetary needs have been caused by the loss of federal stimulus dollars at the end of June. Lawmakers used the stimulus to cushion the state budget when state tax collections were in fact dropping due to the recession and implosion of the state's real estate market. But the stimulus money is going away - and the places where that has a big impact is in the Medicaid program and in public school funding. The biggest reason for Gov. Rick Scott's 10 percent proposed cut in school funding was that Scott said he had no intention of replacing federal stimulus dollars with state dollars.

Legislative leaders have made it clear that they do not intend to raise revenue (with a few caveats) to deal with this shortfall. So they are looking at cutting the budget and forcing state workers to pay part of their pension costs to make up the difference.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ALLOCATIONS, ALLOCATIONS, ALLOCATIONS...While many lawmakers have a say in many of the line-items included in the budget, the starting point is really concentrated in the hands of a few people. Both Senate President Mike Haridopolos and House Speaker Dean Cannon must agree on how money to "allocate" to each of the separate areas of the budget. There's only so much money that can go around. And if you give more money from one area, you have to take it from someplace else.

And part of the allocation process is not just deciding how much money goes to schools or health care. It's how much money that can be used to offset tax cuts. Gov. Rick Scott asked for nearly $2 billion worth tax cuts and he said he's "comfortable" that lawmakers will give it to him, especially his corporate income tax proposal. The bottom line, however, is that state lawmakers can't come up with a final budget until the two legislative leaders sign off on the allocations. And that means it's largely up to the legislative leaders to decide whether they want to give Scott what he wants.

WHO IS THIS GENERAL REVENUE?...The money that is part of the important allocation process is known as "general revenue." This is Capitol shorthand for the state's main checking account. This is the money that comes primarily from the state's 6 percent sales tax, but a handful of other taxes as well such as the corporate income tax, the insurance premium tax and documentary stamp taxes on real estate transactions.

When the amount of general revenue goes down - or doesn't go up as fast as expected - it causes a big problem for state lawmakers since it's their main source of income. But it's important to point out that general revenue is expected to generate $23.8 billion in the coming year. So no, the final amount of spending and the budget is not completely dependent on just general revenue. The final budget amount is also dependent on federal aid and how much money the state takes in what are known as "trust funds."

WHO DOES MONEY FROM A TRUST FUND BELONG TO?...Copious amounts of debate has already been held this session about "trust funds." So what are they? Trust funds are accounts that are set up in state law with a dedicated source of revenue and a dedicated place where the money is spent. And therein lies the big argument. Many groups that pay fees or taxes that wind up in these trust funds view these accounts as special. And they get upset when state lawmakers tinker with them.

Supporters of trust funds argue that a promise was made and that the money should continue to be spent on that program regardless of the ongoing financial realities of the state. There is a fear that a fund dedicated say to affordable housing will vanish and never come back if it is mixed in with money that also goes to schools, health care and prisons. But the counter argument is this: Is it really fair to cut funding to schools and health care while another state program remains intact? Yet groups - whether they are gun owners who pay a concealed weapons fee or those who pay a tax on real-estate transactions - argue that it is a defacto tax increase if money isn't spent the way they want.

HOW MUCH IS THE STATE REALLY SPENDING?...Most people are aware of the ongoing Washington D.C. debate about budgets and what's covered and what's not. Well there is the same kind of debate going on this year in Tallahassee. How big is the state budget really? That's not an easy question to answer. One of the biggest differences right now between the House and Senate budgets is that the Senate budget is much larger because it includes items in the budget that the House doesn't include.

Is this a big deal? Yes and no. If an item is in the budget that means that state lawmakers ultimately control the overall amount spent. That's the logic behind including the budgets from water management districts in the Senate version. But there's also a political dynamic at work here. The more stuff you put in the budget the larger it gets. And at the end of the day, how you explain to voters that the budget you approved was actually larger on paper than the one approved a year ago?

But in reality lawmakers have routinely put stuff in and then yanked stuff out of the budget. It can make it hard to get a read on the complete level of state spending because sometimes they appropriate money in other bills unrelated directly to the budget. Plus, there are lot of other things controlled by state government that aren't annually budgeted such as money shared with city and county governments.

RECURRING OR NON-RECURRING?..You could say money is money. But in the world of the Capitol there's two kinds. There's the kind of money that everyone thinks will keep coming in year after year or "recurring." Then there's "non-recurring," or a supposed one-time windfall that may not be there next year.

The reason that lawmakers separate the two is that there is a thought that it's a bad idea to tie an ongoing expense to non-recurring money. The theory is that this is like wiping out your savings account in order to pay your mortgage. You will get another bill in a month so you have only delayed your financial problems. Now that's not to say that lawmakers haven't done the same thing in the past.

But the state constitution actually places a limit on how much non-recurring money can be placed in the state budget. Anything above 3 percent requires a three-fifths vote of the entire Legislature. So why is this a bit of a problem this year? Because one of the key problems with Gov. Rick Scott's push with phasing out the corporate income tax is that once you do that it starts converting so-called recurring money to non-recurring money. Even if lawmakers passed a bill this year that phases it out over the next seven years the economists will start counting it differently because now the money is "non-recurring."

THOSE PESKY CONFORMING BILLS...It used to be that state lawmakers would pass a 500-page budget and it included all sorts of directions and instructions on how to carry out the budget. Over the years - and thanks to some lawsuits along the way - the Legislature has started passing dozens of so-called "conforming" bills to accompany the budget. 

Sen. Don Gaetz last week asserted that these bills aren't usually substantive. Hmm. That may be true for many of them. But in reality these bills are measures that change state law in order to carry out spending reductions or changes. These measures can be just as sweeping as the budget. For example, how about a "conforming" bill that says money from a cigarette tax hike passed two years ago will no longer go to cancer research.

But it's more than just that. Lawmakers have placed all these conforming bills into the actual budget conference process. So what does that mean? That means they can't be amended once they reach the House and Senate floor. Last week, for example, the House and Senate included their pension reform bills into the budget conference. That means once top leaders negotiate what's in the bill it will be subject to an up or down vote. This has been a problem in the past because until last year the wording of conforming bills was decided behind closed doors.

In response to the scandal involving former House Speaker Ray Sansom, legislators vowed to go over each and every conforming bill in a public meeting. They have promised to do the same this year and a new clause in legislative rules requires a 24-hour waiting period before a final vote can be taken on conforming bills. The bottom line is this that t's not just the budget that you need to watch.

TURKEY AND PORK...No, this is not a Thanksgiving Day menu. In most places when a powerful politician puts something in the budget it's called "pork." In Tallahassee, the parlance is a budget "turkey." Of course, what gets defined as a turkey or pork is a matter of great debate each and every year.

The way the budget process usually work is this: First state agencies put in what's called a "legislative budget request." This is supposed to be an independent assessment by the agency of its financial needs in the coming year. Of course, surprise, surprise, some agencies have not followed that edict especially when agency heads report to a governor who has made it clear that he doesn't want his agencies asking for any additional money. After the "LBR's" are released, the governor takes that information and presents his official budget recommendations to the Legislature.

Lawmakers take the governor's recommendations and build upon it - adding or deleting things that they don't agree with. Many people say that anything not recommended by the governor or by a state agency is a budget turkey. In a lot of instances this is state money set aside for some type of local project or service. Over the years legislators have argued that their opinion on spending items is just as legitimate as that of an agency head in Tallahassee.

LINE-ITEM VETO POWER...One of the most important things to remember about how the state handles its budget is that the governor has line-item veto power. This means that the governor can completely eliminate any spending item without eliminating the entire budget.

Now, theoretically there are limits to this power. A governor is not legally allowed to veto what is called  "provisos" or instructions that accompany certain spending items without wiping out the spending item as well. The governor is also not allowed to veto part of an appropriation. So guess what happened under former Gov. Charlie Crist? Yep. Crist pretty much ignored these restrictions in law.

Did lawmakers complain? Sure they did. But they didn't sue to stop him either. Why is this so important? Because there is ample evidence that the current Legislature will not take the same stance with Gov. Rick Scott. Scott has already ruffled feathers with several steps he has taken that some legislators contend exceed his constitutional limits. If Scott uses the precedent set by Crist it could spark a full-fledged legal battle in front of the Supreme Court later this year.

 

 

 

 

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.