The Fine Print

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." 

J.D.'s revenge or Jeb Bush's fault? The insurance staredown explained

Florida may have a new insurance commissioner on Friday, then again it might not.

But Gov. Rick Scott and members of the Florida Cabinet will hold their third meeting in the last few weeks in a yet-another effort to reach a consensus on who should replace the outgoing Kevin McCarty (pictured left with Scott). As has been well-reported, Scott and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater have been unable to reach agreement on who should replace McCarty. That's created a stalemate because Florida law requires both officials to agree on a replacement.

There are so many ways to view this ongoing drama, which has played out in public largely because of the rushed secretive way that Scott pushed out Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey at the end of 2014. In the end the governor and Cabinet were sued over the entire affair which resulted in new policies that were designed to end behind closed doors decisions regarding the hiring and firing of agency officials who report to the Cabinet.

Atwater has painted the standoff as a byproduct of a process that he says was created to make sure that top officials were deliberative in such an important hire.

Ok.

But perhaps it would be good to take a brief history lesson in how we got here, and why in reality, the process now being used has never really been tested before. And along the way, maybe ask the architect of all this what he thinks about his handiwork (he actually kind of blames Jeb Bush.)

It would be tempting to trace all of this back to the Civil War (yes, really) but let's just say that it became recognized that in the '90s that Florida's governor was considered one of the weaker chief executives in the country.That's because the governor shared power with other elected officials - and in some instances had little control over important areas such as education.

Voters in 1998 were asked to approve a sweeping overhaul of Florida government. This proposal by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission  did a number of things that has generated a lot of debate since then. The education commissioner was changed from an elected to an appointed position. A new State Board of Education (appointed by the governor) became responsible for hiring the commissioner. The governor and Cabinet, which used to be the state education board, no longer had that responsibility. The Secretary of State went from an elected position to an appointed position. And the elected positions of Treasurer and Comptroller would be merged into one new one: the chief financial officer.

As the commission was crafting this proposal, the plan was to also remove the agriculture commissioner from the Cabinet but an uproar from agricultural interests nixed this idea. That eventually created flareups because that leaves four voting members when the governor and Cabinet meet - and leading to discussions on how to weight certain votes so a decision can be made.

Flash forward to 2002: State legislators were under the gun to come up with new laws to put all of these above reforms into action (The amendment did not go into effect immediately). The changes in education, particularly in higher education, sparked an enormous firestorm.

When it came to creating the chief financial officer position, a key argument began to quickly emerge: Should the CFO have complete sway over the regulation of both the insurance and banking sectors - and invariably the large amount of campaign donations that would come from those seeking influence over such important parts of the state economy? In the past, the two jobs were split between the comptroller and treasurer. The treasurer was in essence the insurance commissioner. This led to a public tug-of-war between Comptroller Bob Milligan and Tom Gallagher, who was treasurer and planned to run for CFO.

It was state legislators, including a powerful Republican from Polk County, Rep. J.D. Alexander that came up with the compromise: The jobs of insurance commissioner and banking commissioner would be picked by the governor and the new shrunken Cabinet. And furthermore, there was this addition: The job of insurance commissioner would require BOTH the governor and CFO to agree on who they wanted for the job. The law also states that both elected officials must also agree to fire someone from the position.

Since this was created in 2002 there's been only person to hold the job of appointed insurance commissioner: McCarty. And he's been an ultimate survivor - thanks in no part to the bifurcated law that Alexander helped draw up. CFO Alex Sink wanted to fire him, but then-Gov. Charlie Crist refused to go along. Then during the storm over Bailey's departure it came out that Scott wanted him gone. But Atwater at the time refused to concur and McCarty remained in place until he submitted his resignation earlier this year.

Alexander himself tried to change the law that allowed McCarty to remain in place, saying he was wrong in how they crafted it. He pushed a bill to require that the commissioner be subject to a confirmation vote every two years. It failed to pass.

Now here we are - in a situation that has really not happened since the law took effect.

McCarty was supposed to resign effective May 2 - but then he offered to stay on until 45 days after a successor is chosen - to ensure that Florida has someone in place during hurricane season that starts June 1. Scott's own general counsel, however, maintained that McCarty couldn't do this because the governor and Cabinet had accepted his resignation and could not alter that date without - t'dah - a vote where both the governor and CFO agree. Not so fast, maintained Atwater's team: All the governor and Cabinet did was set a schedule to appoint a replacement. They never "formally" accepted it.

So how does Alexander view all this and how his creation has fared? Well, you could say he waxed a bit poetic about it all, but it sounds as if he is calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam to assert themselves more. (So far Bondi and Putnam have called on Atwater and Scott work out their differences.)

"The genius of the American system of government isn't just democracy but of divided government,'' he said in a message. "Consequently, I wanted the CFO to have the lead over mgt of financial services and insurance. We were forced by the governor of the day to give more authority to his office. An unfortunate outcome of a four member Cabinet. At this point, hopefully the other Cabinet officers will weigh with a choice and consensus will prevail."

Alexander explained that "the governor in my opinion has plenty of power, the constitution seems to give principle authority to the CFO in these matters." He added that the decision all those years ago to keep the agriculture commissioner on the Cabinet "complicated" matters and required them that the governor be given a supervote on certain decision.

"The answer is to lose or gain one Cabinet member," he added. "In the order to pass a bill the governor required a larger role. It was part of the compromise, which we knew had this potential. My guess is the pressure will build and this will be resolved."

Guess we will know if that's true by mid-day Friday.

Bondi's silence amid questions about lobbying, the gift ban and free trips

Right before she was elected to a second term into office, a series of stories by the New York Times detailed the practice of law firms who were skilled at developing contacts and relationships with the top lawyers of various states - including Attorney General Pam Bondi. These firms helped out corporate clients whose businesses had been targeted by some states, but not others.

One of the stories also pointed out that Bondi allowed a lawyer from one of the firms to recuperate from surgery at Bondi's house.

Now 16 months later the matter has come to a quiet close - at least as it concerns Florida's ethics laws.

The Florida Commission on Ethics voted last week there was no probable cause to conclude that the now-defunct law firm Dickstein Shapiro - or one the lawyers who used to work at the firm, Bernard Nash - had broken the state's ethics laws. The finding was made public Wednesday.

The probe into their activities focused on two items: Was it a violation of Florida's gift ban for the firm and Nash to donate money to an organization that wound up paying for trips by Bondi? During her first four years in office Bondi accepted more than $51,000 worth of travel costs, hotels and meals to conferences and other events with other attorneys general. The trips to places such as California, Michigan and countries such as Mexico were picked up by groups such as the Republican Attorneys General Association.

The other part of the probe focused on whether activities by Nash and the firm constituted lobbying even though Nash and members of Dickstein Shapiro had not registered as lobbyists.

An outside lawyer brought in to help look into the case concluded in his report to the commission that in both instances the law had not been broken.

George Reeves argued that a contribution to RAGA was covered by a part of the lobbying law that makes it clear political contributions are not expenditures.

But during the commission meeting, Reeves acknowledged that the lobbying issue was a bit more complicated.

Lawyers are not considering lobbying if they are representing clients involved in a judicial proceeding. But in this instance Nash was reaching out to Florida on behalf of a client who was under investigation in another state. He called Bondi's then chief of staff, Carlos Muniz, and then sent him a follow up email about the issue.

Reeves told commissioners, according to audio that was released along with the files, that what Nash did was "very risky" and that others may be "well served" to register as a lobbyist but said in this instance there wasn't anything that should have prompted the commission to take action.

Yet a deeper look into the information does comes up with several interesting highlights:

1: Bondi herself was never questioned directly by investigators. The investigative report states "Her staff advised that due to her busy schedule and heavy workload she would be unavailable for an interview." Those close to Bondi contend that this may paint a somewhat inaccurate picture, arguing that after investigators interviewed Muniz they did not make it clear they wanted to talk to her.

2: During an hour-long recorded interview with Nash, he tells the commission investigator about how his firm would set up dinners and receptions where they would invite all attorney generals across the state to join them. He said that those from states with ethical restrictions would pay their own way. Nash is unsure if Bondi or Muniz, who usually accompanied her to some of the conferences, attended those dinners. But Nash said no log or register was ever kept of who attended the events. Nash was not asked if any receipts were kept to verify that attendees bound by ethical restrictions in fact paid.

Muniz told investigators that he is certain he and Bondi attended at least one of the meals and maybe more. He said both he and the attorney general always paid for their meals.

3: Nash explained the rationale behind the dinners as a way for his clients to deal directly with attorneys general: "It's an opportunity for them to hear them directly, not filtered through me, what AG’s are saying."

4: Nash downplayed a Bondi fundraiser that Dickstein Shapiro hosted at Mar-A-Lago, the club owned by GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. He said that his firm was listed because it agreed to give a certain amount. "If you contribute less, you are just an ordinary peon."

5: The investigative report points out that Nash denied that he or any of the Dickstein Shapiro employees lobbied. But Reeves in his recommendations to the commission concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" to determine if the other employees  _ including Lori Kalani, the attorney who stayed at Bondi's house, had lobbied Bondi's office. He noted that these employees had called or emailed Bondi's staff regarding issues involving several clients "yet the report of investigation does not elaborate on the substance of these communications and specifically whether matters of policy were discussed."

He added: "This is a very delicate area in which it seems that the line between advocating concerning "policy" and advocating the facts of a specific case could get very blurry," Reeves wrote. "Certainly it seems as though the safer practice would be for such an attorney to register as a lobbyist and then freely advocate for his client regarding the specific facts and policy without concern. However, such safer practice cannot create probable cause where it does not otherwise exist."

Even though Bondi was subjected to scrutiny over her free trips two years ago, she has continued to accept them since she was re-elected.

Gift disclosure forms show that since the fall of 2014 Bondi has received airfare, hotel and meals worth nearly $51,000, including more than $11,000 donated by the government of Taiwan during an eight-day visit in October of last year that appears to have been organized by the National Association of Attorneys General. She has also taken several trips paid by the Rule of Law Defense Fund - a group that bills itself as a "forum for Republican attorneys general to study, discuss and engage on important policy affecting the states and their citizens."

 

The slow fading light of a Scott initiative

Sorry for the delay - time for another installment of Inside the Tallahassee bubble news

Three years ago this May Gov. Rick Scott unveiled an initiative that he said would help citizens hold their government accountable.

Project Sunburst as it was called was described as a way to increase access to public records held by the Scott administration - while at the same time helping cut down on the number of record requests constantly flowing in for emails from both the governor and his staff.

When it started the initiative included the emails of Scott and members of his leadership team (although noticeably absent were the emails of his budget chief and general counsel.)

And when asked about other records, such as correspondence and letters written by Scott, then-Chief of Staff Steve MacNamara promised that would be added as well.

Let's flash forward and see what's there now.

Letters? That never really got going. All that is on is the site are 11 letters written in June 2012.

Ok, so what about emails?

Well, there are more folders associated with former employees than people working there now.

There are four deputy chiefs of staff reporting to Melissa Sellers, Scott's chief of staff and campaign manager for his re-election. None of them have their emails included in Sunburst. Nor does Scott's current cabinet affairs director - an area that has been the source of consternation in recent months since the forced dismissal of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey.

Emails going into an account for Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera appear to have stopped going into Sunburst this past January.

There is still traffic in Sellers account - but it mainly consists of her schedule and emails she receives. She appears to have adopted the same policy as her predecessor and refrains from using her state account to send anything out.

Sunburst does still show Scott's own email account although the great bulk of that account are emails received to his public account from citizens around the state. The site also does include the emails of Scott communications director Jackie Schutz although her account hasn't been updated since May 7.

Another legal battle brewing over taxpayer-helped campaigns

Former State Rep. Perry Thurston lost his bid last year to become the state's top legal affairs officer.

But Thurston is embarking on a legal challenge that could affect future statewide campaigns.

The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for attorney general and his attorney Mark Herron are asserting that the Department of State improperly denied his request last summer for matching funds.

To refresh everyone's memory: Matching funds are taxpayer money that is made available to statewide candidates based on certain eligibility criteria. Those who meet the criteria receive an initial two-for-one match for contributions from Florida residents followed by additional distributions at a one for one match.

The Legislature tried to repeal the program but voters turned down a proposed amendment to get rid of the money.

Thurston asserts he cleared the thresholds needed to get the matching funds including raising at least $100,000.

But in its filing with the Florida Elections Commission attorneys who work for Secretary of State Ken Detzner maintain that the documentation submitted by Thurston in August 2014 put him at slightly more than $99,000 - or below the threshold. They contend that the Thurston campaign did not question the omission of other documentation until after he has lost the Democratic primary to George Sheldon and by then it was too late because he was no longer a candidate.

"If individuals were permitted to submit supplementary documentation to establish the $100,000 threshold for eligibility at any time, even after being eliminated as a candidate, there would be no limiting principle to achieve finality,'' states the filing by then-department general counsel J. Andrew Atkinson.

Thurston appealed the finding to the commission but the panel last week voted against him.

Herron says his client plans to take the case to the 1st District Court of Appeal. He contends that this is an important case because the division used minor issues - the fact that a copy of the check was partially turned down and hid part of an address - to deny Thurston's submission. If the division had counted these checks then Thurston would have been eligible. The October submission was merely resubmitting the same information with new copies of the checks.

The amount of money that Thurston could be eligible for if he wins the case would not be unsubstantial. The division itself acknowledges that if Thurston had been crossed the initial threshold he would have been entitled to roughly $75,000.

In its filing division attorneys assert it is pointless to pay the money now because under law it would have be returned to the state's general revenue account. Herron disputes that as well.

5 biggest questions of the 2014 session

The annual 2014 legislative session kicked off on Tuesday amid the usual ceremony, speeches and even a brief round of protests.

But it appears so far that this year's 60-day march will be relatively low-key, and perhaps, much less contentious than the last three years since Gov. Rick Scott took office. (Example: The 2011 session may remain one of the most substantive sessions in the last decade.)

Still there may be a few flashpoints between now and early May when legislators wrap up their work and hit the campaign trail.

Here are the 5 biggest questions that should be answered between now and then:

1. Is this year's gambling legislation the real deal, or is it all for show?

Here at the start of the session we now have dueling versions of gambling bills that have been rolled out by House and Senate leaders. One of the substantial differences between the two bills is that the Senate version would allow the establishment of two major casinos in South Florida, while the House bill is more of an overhaul of existing gambling regulations. The Senate bill also has wording right now that appears to allow slot machines at some pari-mutuels outside Broward and Miami-Dade although that has been explained as inadvertent.

House Speakr Will Weatherford has maintained that the House will not move forward on any gaming legislation without a constitutional amendment that subjects gambling expansion to voter approval and a new compact negotiated between the governor and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The rationale for waiting on a new compact is that any new gaming bill could affect the agreement that brings in more than $200 million a year to the state. A key portion of that agreement expires in 2015. The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald reported on Tuesday that Scott has opened negotiations with the tribe.

So that could put the entire deck of cards in play if Scott does produce a new compact with the tribe in the new few weeks.

But what's significantly different about the gambling debate from other high profile issues is that it pits some of the biggest political heavyweights in Florida in direct competition with each other, whether it's Disney and the Florida Chamber of Commerce (which oppose expansion), the tribe (which is fighting to keep its existing monopoly that lets it make money off its Tampa casino), or the pari-mutuels (which are fighting to remain viable) or the Las Vegas casino owners who want to build in South Florida.

Now maybe Disney and Central Florida business owners come to the grudging realization that the best deal is to accept one in which they accept casinos in South Florida, but with the understanding that nothing happens north of the Broward county line. Some cynics, however, have suggested this entire process may continue to get dragged out, especially since it has produced hundreds of thousands in political contributions for both parties.

Still there are some legislators who have suggested that the Legislature remains too fractured over the issue and unable to come up with a deal. Right now there isn't even a plan to bring any bills up for a vote for at least another two weeks. Sen. John Thrasher, the veteran North Florida Republican and former head of the party, on opening day called the entire debate a "distraction" and said he hoped they would just quickly kill off the discussion for another year.

2. Will the Republican-controlled Legislature really approve in-state tuition rates for the children of illegal immigrants?

Weatherford on opening day made an impassioned plea for legislators to approve legislation that would allow children of illegal immigrants who had been brought to this country, but had graduated from a Florida high school, to be eligible for the same tuition rate that is charged to other Florida residents. He said it was wrong to "punish" children who had done nothing wrong.

Last year the House considered a similar bill but the key difference here is last year's bill applied only to U.S. born-children of illegal immigrants and it largely codified an existing federal court ruling.

This issue of in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants, sometimes referred to as "Dreamers," is not new. There have been numerous instances in which one chamber or the other has pushed this proposal and other high-profile Republicans such as U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio backed the idea.

But as Rubio showed as he weighed into the debate over immigration, this can trigger some intense debate among the conservatives that make up the base of the Republican Party. It could be argued it also was one of the things that wounded the presidential campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Senate President Don Gaetz has already said he is opposed to the legislation and that he could not explain to his constituents why he could support, in his words, give benefits to someone ahead of someone else who played by the rules.

The question, however, remains whether or not the Legislature wants to put this bill on the desk of Gov. Rick Scott during a critical re-election year.

There's no doubt that Scott's signing of the bill could potentially help him with some Hispanic voters in Florida. Hispanic Republican legislators have been among the steadfast supporters of this legislation for many years.

But would Scott be tempted to veto the bill in an effort to show loyalty to the conservatives who help propel him into office? Would signing the bill risk keeping them at home in a year when he needs every vote?

Scott for his part keeps saying he is "considering" the bill because he remains concerned about the high cost of tuition for all families. Still it's worth wondering whether or not Scott's team quietly asks legislators to push this off in order to avoid the publicity and contentious debate that it could trigger.

3. Testing vs. vouchers

Since entering the Florida Legislature one of the most ardent champions of vouchers, or "school choice" as he and supporters term it, has been Weatherford.

Both Weatherford and Gaetz have said that one of their priorities remains yet another expansion of the state program that offers tax credits to companies that steer money to organizations that hand out vouchers. This year's proposal is significant because it would offer a tax credit for sales taxes, which is the biggest chunk of the state budget and which is paid by lots of companies. The bill would also widen who could qualify for vouchers.

Yet Gaetz has thrown in his own requirement that could ultimately doom the effort.

In his opening day speech, Gaetz told his fellow senators that children who go to private schools courtesy of these vouchers "should be assessed just like the performance of any other child. Why? Because testing is not just about score-carding. It is about measuring academic progress so schools and teachers can customize instruction to meet individual student needs, so parents will know how their children are really doing, so taxpayers can be sure how their money is used."

Let's be clear - it is not unusual for private schools to require standardized tests of students. Jon East, who works for one of the organizations that back vouchers, even points out this out in a recent blog item that students who receive the scholarships have been required to take a norm-referenced test since 2006.

But those tests are not the state-sanctioned tests such as the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and private schools may not use these standardized tests in a way that comes even close to how the public schools use them (such as ranking schools and evaluating teacher performance).

And there's where the debate, and resistance lies. Private schools operators would argue that it would be unfair to mandate a particular type of standardized test. You can go even further. Some private schools in recent years have touted the fact from a marketing standpoint that their schools DO NOT require FCAT testing.

East himself nails the point: "It's which test, not whether to test."

So how will private schools respond if the state says, ok, in the future, students who accept vouchers must take the same test that all students will start taking in 2015 (which is when a new test tied to Common Core.) Some may have no problem since some are in fact tying their curriculum to Common Core just like the public schools. But this debate could cause enough division that it complicates the voucher expansion effort.

4. Could Rick Scott still have a tough session?

Both Weatherford and Gaetz have in many ways cleared the way for Scott to have one of the smoothest sessions he has had since he took office in 2011. They quickly embraced his call for $500 million in tax cuts - and they have already pledged to keep college tuition flat this year as the governor asked.

So does that mean Scott will get everything he wants?

That's not entirely clear.

One early flashpoint has to do with Scott's call to completely eliminate the differential tuition that universities are now allowed to charge.

The universities got the Florida Legislature to give them some limited amount of discretion to raise tuition a maximum of 15 percent a year regardless of the tuition rate set by legislators. The argument at the time was that Florida tuition is low compared to the national average and that students should pay their fair share. This change in law was championed initially by the University of Florida and Florida State University, both of whom have a sizable number of alumni in the Legislature.

The two legislative leaders have initially said that they are willing to lower the differential tuition rate from a maximum of 15 percent to 6 percent.

But Scott wants it entirely eliminated. So far, Weatherford has said he understands the governor's position but he has not endorsed doing that. This could be an interesting and evolving debate for most of the next 60 day session.

Another potential area of discord: Will Scott's appointments - particularly his agency heads such as Department of Economic Opportunity director Jesse Panuccio - get confirmed? There are rumblings that Panuccio may have a tough time. One recent article pointed out that Gaetz himself would not say for sure if he would be confirmed.

Part of this could be the constant dance between legislators and the governor as each side tries to have some small bit of leverage. There was another small bit of evidence of behind-the-scenes intrigue when Rep. Seth McKeel gave the Department of Management Services a dressing down and floated an amendment to take away Scott's control of DMS and instead place it under the governor and Cabinet.

5. Will there be a libertarian wave during this year's session?

Republicans in the Florida Legislature have long wrestled with questions of deregulation, government intrustion versus the need for stability and order.

For example, one big battle early in Gov. Jeb Bush's first term was whether he would sign a bill that eliminated the helmet requirement for motorcyclists. Bush eventually signed the bill into law despite a heavy veto push, including from those in the insurance industry.

This year we have bills to loosen up speed limits, get rid of red light cameras, authorize certain sizes of beer bottles, let grocery stores sell liquor, and even a measure that would permit a certain strain of marijuana to be legal in the state.

For many regular Floridians these arguments over pot, booze and speeding may wind up being the most important things that legislators wind up doing.  But some of these bills have also sparked a fair amount of lobbying in opposition from various interest groups whether it's law enforcement authorities, liquor store owners, and driver safety groups.

The roots behind the Rick Scott-Adam Putnam showdown

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, especially those in "Scott world" that Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam came out so forcefully against Gov. Rick Scott's decision to back the expansion of Medicaid. Putnam called it "naive" and blasted the decision during a speech he gave in Tallahassee.

There are those who already jumping to the conclusion that Putnam is readying himself to a primary challenge against his fellow Republican.

That still appears to be unlikely.

But there has been a feud quietly building up in the last two years.

There are signs - and speculation among those close to Putnam - that he has been viewed as a possible threat ever since the two men came into office in early 2011.

Whatever the reason there is no question that Putnam and his staff have been put on the defensive in back-to-back legislative sessions because each year the governor's office has hinted at the possibility of a veto of Putnam's top legislative priority.

In the first year the Scott administration discussed internally whether to veto a bill that shifted control of the school lunch program away from the Department of Education and over to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The main resistance to the legislation came from the State Board of Education (and which had been contemplating banning chocolate milk in schools), but Putnam was able to shepherd the measure through the Legislature and on to Scott's desk without much resistance. Putnam had managed to build up a coalition of support for the legislation and in the end Scott approved the bill.

But that wasn't the end of the tug-of-war between the Scott administration and Putnam's office.

The same year Putnam won control of the school lunch program the Legislature also gave Putnam a larger say over energy issues.

He followed it up in 2012 by pushing what he termed a modest energy bill that restored tax credits for renewable energy projects. That bill, however, ran into fervent opposition, especially from tea party groups and Americans for Prosperity-Florida, which contended the measure created winners and losers.

Scott let the bill become law - but without his signature.

In a letter announcing his decision Scott wrote that he let it become law out of "deference" to Putnam and the legislators pushing it. But he also questioned whether the bill would produce results. "Absent clear documentation that the proposed tax credits have produced a sufficient return or provided significant cost savings for the state's taxpayers, I will request their repeal," Scott wrote.

Putnam referenced the near veto recently - and explained it was why he decided to opt against recommending any major legislation this year.

"We found widespread support in the Legislature and we very nearly had it vetoed," Putnam told Bruce Ritchie of The Florida Current. "So moving forward, we think it's important there is a clear understanding what all of the interested parties' expectations are for future energy development in Florida."

Another warning shot from Scott to Putnam came right after the governor signed his first budget into law. In his veto message Scott openly questioned the "value" of two divisions under Putnam including the Division of Consumer Services. He wrote that Putnam's office had not done a good enough job to justify the money spent on the two divisions and suggested he might eliminate it in the future.

The tension between Scott and Putnam has also been on display during meetings between the governor and the Cabinet. If you watch closely there have been numerous times that Putnam has gingerly waded into some issue, only to cut himself off and not press the item any further. It almost seems as if he wants to say something, but then decides it's not worth the fight.

This coming week will mark the first time that Scott and the three members of the Cabinet - Putnam, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater - have met publicly since the Medicaid expansion debate began.

Bondi and Atwater have also criticized the decision by Scott to support Medicaid expansion.

Bondi and Scott have for the most part forged a close-working relationship prior to this moment so it's not clear whether this will prove detrimental. Atwater and Scott have had some mild disagreements - particularly in the arena of insurance regulation and Citizens Property Insurance - but the two did work together on pushing changes to the personal injury protection law (PIP).

The biggest question moving ahead is whether Putnam, Bondi or Atwater take time to keep up their opposition to Medicaid expansion and actively lobby against it in the Legislature.

All three members have side-stepped many controversial issues since coming into office in 2011 - refusing to take a stance on numerous items.

Case in point - Putnam was slow wading into the debate over Internet cafes even though the storefront operations have been able to expand by contending they fall under sweepstakes operations (which are regulated by Putnam's office.) It wasn't until after his first session as commissioner that Putnam suggested lawmakers needed to decide if Internet cafes were legal.

But with 2014 right around the corner it will be interesting to see whether or not Putnam - as well as Bondi and Atwater - decide to ratchet up their profiles and battles with the governor.