The Fine Print

Florida turned upside down: 5 takeaways about the 2018 election

  With just under 100 days left before Florida voters decide the crucial 2018 election, President Donald Trump held a boisterous rally on Tuesday night with 10,000 people in Tampa where he enthusiastically urged his supporters to back U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis for governor in the upcoming Republican primary.

Trump's backing of DeSantis is already being seen as a fatal blow to Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, who for most of the last year appeared to rolling smoothly in his quest to succeed Florida Gov. Rick Scott.

1 big takeaway....The Trump primary

The rally in Tampa and the downward drag on Putnam emphatically shows the outsized importance of all things Trump in the Aug. 28 primary.

In a year when toxic algal blooms are fouling the state's waters ,the shooting at Parkland prompted a reluctant Florida Legislature to act on guns, and Stand Your Ground laws are once again being scrutinized- the defining issue in the primary remains the president.

On the GOP side, it's more than just the holding a rally and tweeting out his support. Candidates up and down the ballot in the Sunshine State are arguing with each other on whether someone is a true believer - or whether someone had once been opposed to Trump before his election in 2016. Case in point: Sen. Greg Steube unearthing old tweets by Rep. Julio Gonzalez to paint him as a "Never Trumper." 

Democrats, meanwhile, are skirmishing over who is the most-anti-Trumper, and how strong their opposition is. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum likes to point out how he's calling for Trump's impeachment, while candidate Jeff Greene has called Trump a "traitor." Gwen Graham has called Trump a "bully' and "embarrassment." But this fervor isn't contained to just the governor's race. It's playing out in numerous congressional contests as well.

This election cycle is now worlds away from ones where issues such as class size, education, health care and job growth dominated.

In some ways, it began in 2010 when Gov. Rick Scott used criticism of President Barack Obama and fears of rising national debts as a key part of his campaign. But Scott also highlighted immigration and his plans tor turning around the state's economy as other parts of his campaign message.

Just before Trump took stage, the Putnam campaign recognized this new reality that has turned the state's politics upside down.

In a statement Putnam praised Trump, yet at the same time bemoaned that DeSantis "has released zero plans on any Florida issue since announcing his campaign." 

 2. End of traditional campaigns?

The potential demise of Putnam also shows that the tried-and-true methods used by so many candidates in the past are becoming less and less important.

In 2010, Scott's victory showed that an onslaught of television ads could bury a rival who had built up a campaign organization. But if DeSantis wins it shows that a presidential endorsement - and a bevy of appearances on Fox News - can blunt money, staffing and organizational advantages. (It also shows the diminished impact of local media in a world where everything is seen through a DC-centric, not Florida-centric lens.)

Florida's primary usually has been decided by a small subset of voters. Only 22 percent of voters turned out in the 2010 primary. Normally this would mean that a campaign needed to chase absentee voters and engage in a robust campaign of phone calls and personal contacts in order to get voters to participate. That's why a superior organization was considered crucial.

But another key question emerging this cycle is the role of television ads.

Several campaign consultants have said that TV remains a huge factor in Florida, especially among older voters. There's a possibility, however, that the winning candidate from both the GOP and Democratic side will not have spent nearly as much money on television ads as their rivals. As viewing habits - and consumption of information changes among young voters- it's worth noting that this could be a turning point.

3. Recycling the playbook

There is one campaign that is sticking to some tried-and-true strategies and that's the one Scott is mounting against incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson.

Scott has sold himself has a successful businessman, but that career was overshadowed by scandal. Scott was forced out as CEO of Columbia/HCA shortly after a federal investigation became public. The end result is that Scott's former company paid a then-record fine of $1.7 billion to settle allegations of fraud.

So in three straight elections Scott campaign team (which includes many of the same consultants each time) has gone on the offensive: It's the other candidate who has ethics problems. They took the state plane, they helped a crook defraud investors, etc. The early press releases and even some of the ads in this year's campaign echo this. They are all designed to force Nelson to defend his actions and behavior. It can be argued that some of the actions aren't of equal weight, but that's not the point.

Two other elements at work: Scott in 2010 and 2014 assailed Obama and his policies and tried to link them to the Democratic nominee. Bashing the federal government was part of the governor's talking points and script. Trump's ascension has made that trickier,  but now it's shots at Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and complaints in general about how DC is dysfunctional (no matter that Republicans are in control.)

Last item: Ahead of 2014, Scott made sure to use his power as governor to sidestep or try to mitigate potential controversies bubbling up, especially those happening in key Republican strongholds. It appears to be happening again this year as well.

4. Which voters will show up?

When you talk to those who waged campaigns against Scott, aside from the finger-pointing over went wrong, the real frustration is that he squeezed by each time.

Scott won by nearly 62,000 votes (about 1.2 percent) in 2010 and more than 64,00 votes (1 percent) four years later.

Overall turnout in both elections hovered around 50 percent and Democrats seemed unable to generate the kind of turnout they needed in Democratic strongholds to overtake Scott. (Turnout in the last three presidential contests _ two of which were won by Obama _ have been at 70 percent or above.)

This, however, was before the age of Trump.

Now of course there predictions _ and attempts to debunk _ the notion of a "blue wave" that will translate displeasure with Trump into success at the ballot box. Various Democrats have engaged in back-and-forth over what will make the difference this year: Is it a candidate that appeals to young voters, women voters, or progressives? 

But here's another factor for the Republicans _ and the DeSantis camp especially _ to consider: Can they replicate Trump's numbers?

Trump's 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton in Florida was significant because Clinton actually got more votes than Obama did the two times he carried the state. She came in within 6,000 votes of Trump in places like Duval County.

The difference, however, is the margins Trump rolled up in Republican dominated or Republican-leaning counties, fueled in part by an "impressive" surge of voting that took place on Election Day. (See: Election Daze: Voting Modes and Voter Preferences in the 2016 Election - Authors - Smith, McKee, Hood).

And that translated into substantial margins not previously seen. In Lee County, for example, Trump got 44,000 more votes than Mitt Romney did just four years earlier. Will these voters in Florida who propelled Trump victory two years ago transport their support for the president into this year's midterm?

5. The Puerto Rican Diaspora

Last Saturday San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz endorsed Nelson in his battle against Scott and while doing so repeated criticisms against Trump and how his administration responded in the aftermath of last year's Hurricane Maria.

It was the latest chapter in an ongoing push by both Republicans and Democrats to appeal to tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans who flocked to Florida after the devastating storm.

Both Nelson and Scott have traveled to the island territory. Scott for his part offered assistance to Puerto Rican evacuees, even going so far as using his emergency powers to sidestep the Legislature in order to pay for it. Candidates for governor have also focused on Puerto Rico. He stared airing a Spanish-language television and digital ad on Wednesday that stressed he had helped Puerto Ricans.

Former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine chartered a plane and delivered supplies shortly after Maria struck. Gillum traveled to San Juan last weekend.

There are open questions, however, about the impact that evacuees will play in Florida's election.

The Washington Post pointed out a few days ago that so far there is little indication that the Puerto Ricans who left the island are registering to vote in the state.

There's still time for that to change as the election moves closer. But as Orlando legislator Amy Mercado noted to the Post: "Their main focus obviously is going to be survival...The last thing they are thinking about is politics."

Mystery appeals and campaign finance dilemmas

Time for another round of inside the bubble news....

Who's ad is it anyway?....Republican frontrunner for governor Adam Putnam hit the airwaves this month with a biographical ad that is meant to highlight his agricultural roots and his belief in faith and family.

But campaign records available so far show that the ad isn't being bankrolled by Putnam's campaign.

Instead Florida Grown, a political committee organized and controlled by the agriculture commissioner, has already paid nearly $1 million to Smart Media Group to purchase television time for the ad. That has been backed by FCC filings on file that show that the ad is being paid for by Florida Grown.

Ads on television have carried a disclaimer saying it was a paid political advertisement from Florida Grown.

Yet on Sunday, the Putnam campaign put out a fundraising pitch that says it's their ad and asked people to give them money to keep it on the air. There's a link to the ad on the Putnam for governor website. That version _ which is a full minute in length and not 30 seconds like the version shown on television _ has a disclaimer saying it was paid by the Adam Putnam for governor campaign.

So why is this important?

Well, the first is that Florida Grown can accept unlimited amounts from anyone, including corporate donors, while Putnam's actual campaign can only accept donations worth up to $3,000. So that means that it's harder to raise money for the actual campaign versus the political committee. And that's why there would be a desire to pay for television ads through the committee since those dollars are much easier to replace.

But while Florida law regarding political committees has loosened up in recent years there remain some restrictions on how those committees can spend money.

Florida does not have the same kind of federal restrictions that are supposed to limit contact and coordination between campaigns and other groups. Campaigns are allowed to work in tandem with committees regarding ads.

But the state's Division of Elections put out a very interesting opinion in 2016 that could have ramifications for the Putnam campaign.

Well-known attorney Ron Meyer, who does work on behalf of entities aligned with the Florida Education Association, asked that year about what kind of ads a political committee could undertake - including running television ads that refer or depict "a clearly identified candidate for office" that do not "expressly advocate" for that candidate but have no other reasonable interpretation "than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

In that opinion, the division stated that there are a type of ads that fall outside the normal definition of what constitutes a regulated ad. These are ads that are run outside a period of 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. These ads are also coordinated with a campaign but do not expressly advocate someone's election. But here's the important part: Since these ads don't fall under the normal definition then a committee that does such ad could be contributing to a campaign.

If this opinion were applied to the Florida Grown ad, then it could be a problem especially since $1 million is way beyond the $3,000 contribution limit.

Under Florida law, campaigns that accept contributions above the legal limit can be susceptible to fines twice the amount of the contribution.

It is important to stress that this is an interpretation of existing law by the Division of Elections. But this speaks to the nature of Florida's complicated campaign finance laws and how they function - and just as important - what is the actual purpose of the law.

MYSTERY APPEAL...There was quite a bit of drama last week as it relates to Florida's automatic ban on civil rights for felons.

A federal appeals court late Wednesday agreed to place a stay on U.S. District Judge Mark Walker's ruling that maintained that Florida's current system for deciding who should have their rights restored is unconstitutional. Florida currently requires former prisoners to wait anywhere from five to seven years after they leave prison before they can ask to have their rights restored. Walker sided with former prisoners who had their applications denied. And as part of that ruling, Walker ordered the state to overhaul its rules by April 26.

Fearful that the appeals court would not act in time Gov. Rick Scott scheduled an emergency meeting of the state's clemency board (which consists of the governor and the three other elected Cabinet officials) with a potential new set of rules. The meeting was scrapped, however, when the court came down with its last-minute decision.

So here's the mystery then: Who gave the order for the clemency board to file the appeal and request the stay in the first place?

Here's the reason for that question: The lawsuit wasn't just against Scott or Attorney General Pam Bondi but it was a lawsuit against the clemency board itself. Florida's Sunshine Law does in general apply to meetings of the governor and Cabinet. (Clemency records are confidential, but there has not been an assertion that the board can meet in private.)

The state's solicitor general _ who works for Bondi _ filed the appeal and the stay request even though there was never a meeting of the clemency board to discuss or vote on what to do in the wake of the initial ruling.

And the state officials who sit on the clemency board have not given a lot of information on how this happened.

When first asked, Whitney Ray, a spokesman for Bondi said that "given the gravity of this issue, a decision to appeal was never in question."

Ok, but again - the solicitor general is an attorney who was working on behalf of the clemency board. Usually attorneys must confer with their clients before proceeding with major action such an an appeal.

During a public availability, Bondi herself refused to answer a question on the decision to appeal. She said that "we're not going to talk about pending litigation."

The press offices for both Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis and Putnam also did not yield much information on the decision to appeal. Putnam's spokeswoman, Jennifer Meale, said that their office was "notified of the decision to appeal." Patronis's office said the CFO was "kept informed" by communication between the solicitor general and the general counsel for Patronis.

So in both instances neither official said they made an affirmative decision to appeal.

The only office to finally bring some light to the situation was Scott's office. John Tupps, a spokesman for Scott, said that the general counsel for the governor conferred with the solicitor general about the need for appeal.

And the governor's office maintains that such a move was legal even though it was done behind closed doors. They point to a 1978 case that is still cited in the Sunshine Manual that said it was ok for an attorney to confer with members of a board in reaching a decision to appeal.

But even if Scott and Bondi agreed to an appeal that's still just two out of four clemency board members.

Worth pointing out as well: Scott and the Cabinet were sued in 2015 for sidestepping the Sunshine Law because of the way then Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey was dismissed since he worked for all four officials not just the governor. In the end the case was settled, but only after the state agreed to pay attorney fees in the case and that senior staff and aides participate in mandatory Sunshine Law training.

Barbara Petersen of the First Amendment Foundation said that whole situation "doesn't pass the sniff test" and questions if the other members of the board have yielded all legal decisions to Scott's office.

One Democratic candidate for governor opposed to Florida's current system of handing rights restoration is also asking questions.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum last week filed a public records request that asked for any records related to the decision to appeal and file other legal motions in the case. In his letter seeking the records Gillum states "it is unclear the legality of whether the Solicitor General, at the discretion of the Governor, can decide to file a motion, or a series of motions, on behalf of all the Cabinet officers. Floridians deserve to know how their Cabinet officers agreed to a legal decision on behalf of the state of Florida."