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." 

5 biggest questions of the 2018 session

Here we are again: Following a year that included a civil war among Republicans that sparked a special session and ended with a sexual misconduct scandal that scuttled the political career of Sen. Jack Latvala the GOP-controlled Legislature returns to Tallahassee for what could be another bumpy ride.

In no particular order, here are the five biggest questions of the 2018 session.

1. Is there more turmoil to come? The decision by Latvala to resign last month following a devastating investigative report into his conduct capped off a tumultuous year, especially in the Senate. Three senators ultimately resigned in an off-election year following news accounts of their behavior.

The House was not immune from drama either as one Democratic House member resigned amid an investigation into her residency. Other GOP House members quit as well, citing the top-down management style of House Speaker Richard Corcoran.

The question remains: Are there more secrets to spill out into the open from the confines of the members-only Governors Club and the other places in Tallahassee that normally remain hidden from public view?

There is a constant buzz of rumors and innuendo and whispered allegations that this legislator is next, or that other relationships will be exposed to scrutiny. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement continues to investigate Latvala over an allegation uncovered by the Senate investigation that suggests he may offered legislative action in exchange for sexual favors. (For his part, Latvala continues to deny wrongdoing.)

Then there's the fear that Latvala - who continues to sit on a large amount of cash into political accounts he controls - will proceed to use that money to go after those who came after him. There is an expectation that the entire scandal will eventually lead to lawsuits where even more secrets could be exposed.

This constant fear of drama feeds into an uneasy atmosphere that now hangs over Tallahassee because those that run this town don't like their secrets getting out.

 2. Will political ambitions interfere with a smooth session? In many election years, there is a tendency for sessions to run quickly and smoothly as legislators head to the exits in order to raise money for looming campaigns.

This year may not be the norm.

Gov. Rick Scott, of course, is expected to run for U.S. Senate. Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam is running for governor. Corcoran is expected to run for governor. Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis is running for a full four-year term after Scott appointed him to the post last year. There are legislators seeking to replace Putnam and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The question is how whether these colliding campaigns will spill into the legislative arena and derail things.

One important thing to remember - Corcoran can't raise money during session, but his power could wane once the 2018 session is wrapped up and a budget is on Scott's desk. That means some special interests may stop giving him money once everything is finished.

So any type of blow-up, anything that could prevent legislators from passing a budget could theoretically help him. Here's the thought: Session is earlier this year, so in reality legislators could pass a budget in early May and it would not cause any disruption.

Under this theory, legislators adjourn for several weeks - meaning the cash could resume flowing into campaign accounts.

That's not saying it would happen, but there are several issues, including whether or not to use a rise in local property taxes to pay for schools, that could easily trigger a standoff and at the time help those seeking higher office.

 3. Does Gov. Rick Scott have an easier time getting the Legislature to help him this year?

During his entire time in office the multi-millionaire businessman has had a topsy turvy with members of his own party. The governor even today likes to remind people that when he ran for governor in 2010 no one in the GOP establishment endorsed him. During an interview just last week, Scott noted that Corcoran was expected to run this year and added - "It's a totally different race from mine. Everyone had endorsed my opponent."

Last year amid a struggle over Scott's push for economic incentives and money for Visit Florida the governor went after House Republicans. He aired television ads and he visited legislators districts where he called them out by name for failing to vote with him.

After reaching a deal with Corcoran last summer that resulted in a final budget deal, his fellow Republicans have been much respectful. A recent video posted on the House website was effusive with praise about Scott's handling of Hurricane Irma.

Still Scott's agenda isn't an easy sell. His budget recommendations are viewed as too optimistic and don't reflect the state's tightening financial situation. His push to rely on a rise in local property values to help pay for a hike in school funding has already been declared dead on arrival by Corcoran. Business interests were disappointed that Scott's tax cut package was aimed directly at consumers.

In 2014, then House Speaker Will Weatherford helped muscle through legislation that helped Scott in his re-election year. But that is an eternity ago. Since then Scott has stopped raising money for the Republican Party of Florida and there has been a string of blow-ups. Do legislators remember? Or do they decide in the end they need to help the governor?

4. Will Senate President Joe Negron finally win approval for his higher education overhaul?

A lot of time and energy will be spent this session on special interest battles, but probably some of the most substantive policy issues will be the education measures being pursued by legislative leaders.

Last year Negron pursued a substantive higher education overhaul that contained a major boost in college scholarships for the state's highest performing students. Scott vetoed it, citing concerns from college presidents and others who didn't like some of the restrictions on institutions that used to be called community colleges.

The proposals are back this year (although right now in separate bills) and the Senate has expanded the financial aid portion even further. The legislation dealing with the state college system continues to draw flak from college presidents. (Reminder - the state university system and state college system operate totally separate. They are funded differently and controlled by different entities. They do not work in tandem. The two have had back and forth tug-of-war for years and calls to have a cohesive system has been sidestepped and ignored.)

Some House Republicans have already begun to raise questions about the higher education proposals. One possible scenario is that the House trades approval for Senate approval of House priorities, including a new voucher proposal pushed by Corcoran that would allow students who are bullied to transfer to a private school. The bigger question is whether Scott - who has had his own clashes with universities - will ultimately go along with the revamped proposal.

5. Will local governments lose even more control this year?

For years, the GOP-controlled Legislature has railed against Washington D.C. and the mandates placed on states by the federal government. Yet at the same time there has been fight after fight in the halls of the state Capitol over whether to block local governments from all sorts of regulations ranging from the use of plastic bags to lawn fertilizer.

Corcoran last year argued that the Legislature is the closest to the people and that's why it has a legitimate role in providing oversight over local affairs and blocking local governments from taking certain actions.

This session will likely be consumed with a series of skirmishes in this same arena, starting with the House bill to go after  "sanctuary cities" that do not cooperate with federal authorities on immigration enforcement. (It's been noted that right now no cities in Florida fit this description.) The House is expected to pass the bill later week.

There are bills filed dealing with everything from local tree ordinances to regulation of short-term rentals to more oversight for local tourism councils and a ban on the use of tax money for pro stadiums.

Get ready to rumble.

The 5 biggest questions of the 2017 session

The 2017 session kicked off on Tuesday amid the usual pomp and circumstance and rows of desks overflowing with flowers, but this time around - there is a sense of apprehension about whether or not the schism between Republicans Gov. Rick Scott and House Speaker Richard Corcoran as well as the building tension between the House and Senate will result in a dysfunctional session that spirals out of control.

So realizing that any predictions this session is a risky business, here in no particular order are the 5 biggest questions of the session:

1. How hard will be it to pass a new state budget? The one job for Tallahassee legislators is of course the passage of a new spending plan. A lot of time and energy has already been spent on the fate of Visit Florida, the state's tourism marketing arm, and Enterprise Florida, the entity set up to recruit businesses to the state. The latest House plan calls for the elimination of Enterprise Florida and the imposition of stringent new rules on Visit Florida.

But in reality that's just a small part of the work that lies ahead.

Scott, the House and Senate are on a collision course. Scott says the state has plenty of money to do what he wants including a $618 million tax cut. Senate leaders say they can pass a budget that boosts spending on school financial aid and pays for Senate President Joe Negron's plan to acquire land south of Lake Okeechobee. The House meanwhile is planning to move ahead with a budget that includes a substantial boost in funding for low-income charter schools, while slashing other spending more than $1 billion and holding the line on local property taxes. (Scott uses this rise in local property taxes to help pay for a boost in school spending.)

The argument coming from the House - and reinforced in Corcoran's opening day speech - is that the state is spending too much (while at the same time contending that past years of tax cuts did not play a role) and that drastic action must be taken to make sure the budget will not be massively out of balance in the next two or three years.

There are some observers who contend that last week's agreement between Negron and Corcoran on a new budget rule regarding new projects is a good sign that shows Corcoran is capable of compromise.

But that new rule doesn't solve the math problem.

And this tug-of-war over spending could easily grind the session to a halt, or worse, force legislators into overtime.

It wouldn't be a surprise if the House goal is put together a budget that forces Scott to make difficult decisions - including the elimination of Enterprise Florida. Will the Senate keep its budding alliance with Scott and resist? Or will Scott be forced to actually consider vetoing the budget and in a moment sure to command plenty of press attention - order legislators back to Tallahassee to pass a budget that he says doesn't crash the economy?

Another pivotal budget item: The $300 million that the state received from the Deepwater Horizon settlement that is supposed to go to eight North Florida counties. The money was received last year but it still hasn't gone out the door. It's gotten a bit lost in the mix, but this item could prove crucial in the final mix. Negron, during his opening day press conferences, started out his remarks by warning that the Senate will not go along with a House proposal to place limits on how the money is spent. That bill initially placed firm legislative controls on the spending, but then it was amended. It's now parked in a committee that cancelled its meeting this week.

And without going into great detail - the longer the budget impasse is unresolved the more control actually shifts to Scott. He has several administrative tools in his hands that he can use to keep state government open - and control state spending - if legislators are actually unable to reach a final deal by July 1.

2. What does Richard Corcoran really want? Say this for Mr. Speaker - he has befuddled a lot of people.

Part of it is that Corcoran is a skilled political operative who knows all about leverage and negotiations. Corcoran's showdown with Scott over economic development and contracts as well as his crackdown on lobbyists has led to speculation about his true motives and true intentions and a looming bid for higher office.

A bid for governorship may be ultimately where he winds up.

But those who know him closely contend that Corcoran's wish list - which includes term limits for Supreme Court justices and appeals court judges as well as help for low-income charter schools - is not just window dressing.

And understand this: Corcoran not only has supporters in the House, but he also has quietly built up backing in the Senate as illustrated by his appointment this week of Sen. Tom Lee to the Florida Constitution Revision Commission. Lee has made it clear that he is a "free agent" during the upcoming session.

If you look closely it appears that Corcoran may have sway with a handful of Senate Republicans, which means he may have some leverage in the "deliberative Senate." And it also creates one side-item of speculation (consider it question 2A) - Will Negron have to rely on Democrats in order to get his agenda passed?

Corcoran also appears willing to try another legislative tactic and that's to put a lot of things into motion. He outlined many of his top priorities in his opening day remarks (or call to arms) but the House keeps pumping out new issues, whether it's an overhaul of the Public Service Commission, limits on local government taxes. There are promises to keep pressure on the judiciary and who knows there may be more lawsuits in play.

It makes harder, however, to keep a tally on what's really important to him. And maybe that's the goal.

3. Will the sugar industry win again? Negron's Lake O plan has already drawn a wide share of detractors - including from those in Florida's powerful sugar industry. As anyone who follows Florida politics knows, the state's sugar companies have strong political connections and wield a great deal of influence. Many leaders - including Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam - have already said they are opposed to Negron's plan as costly and unnecessary.

There is also a full-on public relations battle going on with public relations firms cranking out press releases that are then reinforced through coverage in various online outlets. Much of it may not reach into other parts of the state but it will increase pressure inside the beltway and inside the Capitol building.

The battle over the Lake O plan has already forced Negron to step down from the Gunster law firm because U.S. Sugar is a client of the firm.

But Corcoran said during a recent appearance at a Tallahassee private school that he was actually open to considering the plan, although he warned that legislators could get bogged down discussing the actual details of the proposal that calls for borrowing money in order to finance the acquisition. Corcoran's receptiveness to Negron's proposal caused a bit of a ripple through the Capitol.

Negron and Senate Republicans are already tinkering with the plan so that may be seen as a sign that it's still an uphill battle. Still it's safe to assume this issue will remain in play until the very end.

4. How relevant will Gov. Scott be in this year's session? Since he arrived in 2011 Scott has had an up-and-down relationship with his fellow Republicans in the Legislature. It's complicated his ability to get his agenda carried out. (Case in point -some may not remember he wanted nearly $2 billion in cuts to education his first year, a two-year budget and giant tax cuts.)

But there's no doubt this year is different as Corcoran and Scott have traded videos and barbs over the House's push to scuttle Enterprise Florida and trim back Visit Florida. Scott has vigorously defended the programs and has called out by name House members opposed to his agenda and launched robo-calls in their districts.

Among the items in the governor's favor is Scott's bond with President Donald Trump, which of course gives him a really important ally. (Will it count? Who knows, but it's worth noting.)

Scott has also taken time to try to strengthen his relationship with the Senate, as evidenced by his visit on Monday night to a private reception hosted by Sen. Jack Latvala, the Senate budget chief. And so far the Senate has been more supportive of the governor, although Scott's tax cut package may be a tough sell due to budget constraints.

The governor also gained a bit of additional leverage with the announcement that Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater was stepping down after session. Now Scott has an important appointment to make and there are some legislators who would like that plum assignment so they may be more receptive to aiding him.

Scott also of course has veto power over appropriations and bills which can convince recalcitrant legislators to play nice with him. But in the end will the desire of Senate and House Republicans to reach a deal - and knowing Scott's time in office is coming to an end soon - trump all of the governor's leverage points?

5. How many gun bills will pass? Much has already been written about the long line of gun rights bills up for consideration during this year's session. They of course include open carry, campus carry, and a rewrite of the state's "stand your ground" law.

Recent tragedies such as the Pulse Nightclub shooting and the killings at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport have added to a debate about "gun free zones" and whether or not people should be allowed to bring their guns into areas they are not allowed to now.

In the past few years, some of the more contentious gun bills have gotten bogged down and failed to pass. Polls have shown that many of the proposals aren't backed by a majority of Floridians. But gun rights supporters - including the National Rifle Association - have been unrelenting in their push to get these measures passed.

On the first day of session Sen. Anitere Flores, a Miami Republican, made it clear that she has trouble with some of the proposals - a move that means that several bills would not be able to move out of a key committee in the Senate.

But there's still a lot of time left in session so it may be a tad premature to declare everything dead for now. And the change proposed to the stand your ground law has strong support, including from Negron, so that appears to be on track to pass.

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.

Richard Corcoran, the money and Ma Barker

In the wake of the Great Recession legislative leaders pulled the plug on the process that helped the public know a little bit about where items stashed in the budget came from.

For various reasons, and despite some Democrats decrying the amount of pork contained in the state budget, legislators have not reinstated the process known as "community budget issue requests" even as the economy has steadily recovered.

Well this year is turning out to be a bit different.

Rep. Richard Corcoran, the Pasco County Republican now in charge of the House budget, is helping the House push ahead with changes in the budget process.

Corcoran on Jan. 30 emailed House members and told them that if they wanted something in the 2015-16 budget they needed to answer a series of questions about the project.

"It is important that we have complete information about any issue that receives an appropriation," Corcoran wrote. His email then laid out a lengthy list of questions that needed to be answered including whether the project had gotten state money before and whether the money was needed for construction or other capital outlay costs.

Corcoran made it clear that he expected the summary because "it my expectation that budget issues are thoroughly vetted."

When asked about it Corcoran explained that both he and House Speaker Steve Crisafulli wanted to bring back "transparency" into the budget process.

Corcoran's email apparently caused quite a bit of discussion among legislators.

On Feb. 10, he emailed members again, explaining that he had heard from members who wondered what kind of budget issue actually required information that needed to be turned over.

"Because any description I may offer could lead to misunderstanding, my suggestion to you is - when in doubt, complete the summary,'' Corcoran wrote.

Then Corcoran went further: He also included a "House Internal Member Project Policy" that explained what types of projects would be included in the House's budget.

And included in this list of eight criteria is a potential big shift for Capitol insiders.

In order for any item to be in the budget it must "be clearly displayed in the appropriations bill either by proviso of by unique appropriation category which identifies the project."

In other words, any attempt to roll an item into the base, or have it tucked in a larger appropriation will not be allowed.

The criteria also stated that priority consideration would be given to projects seeking one-time funding, have matching dollars and do not contain any construction money unless it for the "construction, improvement, maintenance or repair of state-owned infrastructure or other facilities as authorized by general law." This is similar to a budget policy that former Gov. Jeb Bush had where he was skeptical about handing out state money for something that would not be owned by the state.

It is worth noting _ as Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater has _ that just having a process like this would not prevent questionable behavior.

When he was Senate President Atwater noted that legislators had a process at the time that Ray Sansom was the House budget chief. Questions were raised about money that the Destin Republican steered into the budget for a project that was seen as beneficial to a Republican donor. Sansom wound up resigning from his speaker's post _ and the Legislature. He was charged by authorities, but they were dropped when a judge refused to allow a key witness testify.

But it's clear this new House process will require that legislators have their names attached to a earmark request in the state budget.

This process is not in place over in the Florida Senate.

But that doesn't mean that some senators aren't taking their own steps to bring more exposure to budget items.

Sen. Jack Latvala, the Clearwater Republican in charge of the transportation and economic development portions of the budget, held a public hearing this past week where roughly 50 individuals around the state were required to testify about local projects they wanted state money for.

Latvala said he made the decision to require public testimony in order to counter any suggestions that budget items were slipped in - and therefore were "budget turkeys" - which is Tallahassee-speak for pork.

"This gives everything a public airing and I think it's important for the members to hear what I hear,'' Latvala said.

The hearing attracted a lengthy list of local officials, including county commissioners such as Miami-Dade Commissioner Rebeca Sosa coming in to ask for state help.

Marion County Commissioner Kathy Bryant may have had the most interesting request during the nearly three-hour meeting.

Bryant said that Marion County wanted nearly $2 million to buy land located in Ocklawaha that was the site of a famed shootout with the FBI that left famed criminal Ma Barker dead. The 2-story house that that was the site of the 1935 shootout still has bullets imbedded in the walls and includes furniture from the time. Bryant said that Marion wanted to make it part of a law-enforcement museum and wanted to acquire it to prevent "further degradation."

She added there is a strong interest in "crime memorabilia" and that when it was opened up to the public on the 50th anniversary that 5,000 people visited.

When she was done, Latvala quipped: "You did all that with a straight face." He then joked a little later about Marion County seeking money so it could honor "a criminal."

Latvala warned afterwards that he wasn't sure how many, if any, of the projects seeking money this year would be included in the budget. That was a nod to the ongoing tug-of-war over health care funding that has created budget problems this year.

But at least there now exists some records on the origins of what projects may wind up in the final budget.

Is Adam Putnam winning the invisible primary for 2018?

The next governor's race is still a long, long way off.

But as the year has progressed _ and the dominoes appear to ready to fall due to the looming campaigns of U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush _ it appears that one Republican continues to position himself for the 2018 race for governor.

And that's Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam _ who was sworn into a second term this past January.

Of course it's no secret that most Tallahassee insider and Florida politicos think that the former legislator and U.S. congressman will run.

Putnam for his part won't answer the question.

"I'm entirely focused on being the best second term agriculture commissioner I can be and focusing on the issues at hand,'' Putnam said in a recent interview.

 But a series of recent events have made it clear that the path is getting clearer for Putnam to be the frontrunner.

1: The other Cabinet official seen as a potential rival _ Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater _ is angling for a run for the U.S. Senate. Atwater was spotted last week in DC with a well-known Republican consultant in tow.

Atwater's main target would be the seat held by Rubio should the Miami Republican do as expected and jump into the race for president. Rubio has said several times now that he will not seek re-election if he runs for president. That has led to a lot of anticipation that Republicans will quickly jump into action should Rubio make it official. But Atwater is also apparently willing to wait until 2018 and run for the seat now held by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson if Rubio suddenly changes course.

2. While there is buzz among Tallahassee insiders that Rubio is really angling for the 2018 governor's race himself _ there are others who insist this is just idle gossip and that a presidential bid by Rubio would in fact be a serious endeavor regardless of whether former Gov. Bush makes his all-but-official presidential campaign official.

Putnam calls Rubio a "friend and an outstanding public servant" but for his part maintains that Rubio's plans won't affect his thinking.

"I think that when it’s time to make decisions about what you choose to run for it has to be based on your own convictions, and your own views and your own ability to do the best job you can in that role,'' Putnam said. "You can only control what you can control, you can’t worry about things you can’t control."

3. Putnam continues to distance himself from Gov. Rick Scott _ on events such as the ouster of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey _ while making sure he pursues his own set of policies that could help give him a record to run on.

The animus between Scott and Putnam dates all the way back to 2011 when Scott insiders viewed Putnam as a potential primary rival in 2014. Scott repeatedly has threatened to veto Putnam's top legislative priorities and even once suggested that he would veto chunks of the budget for Putnam's agency.

This hasn't stopped Putnam. Last year a reworking of the state's utility tax pushed by Putnam was folded into a bill including Scott's tax priorities after Scott said he didn't like Putnam's suggestion. This year it's Putnam emerging as a champion of the House water bill that has come under fire from some environmental groups.

During his first term Putnam got involved in the school lunch program and energy policy. Recently he began drawing attention to the idea of "food deserts" in the state.

Putnam said his efforts reflect a "21st Century model" for what an agriculture department should look like. But he also maintains that he can be a voice for issues that go beyond his office.

"Just as I have a role as the commissioner of agriculture, there’s also a role as a statewide elected official to identify issues of statewide import and to bring a solution,'' said Putnam.

4. Putnam also keeps making sure he says the right things (most of the time) to the conservatives in the GOP.

When Scott surprisingly switched his stance on Medicaid expansion it was Putnam who was one of the first to sharply criticize the governor. He hasn't been as vocal on immigration issues _ which isn't viewed in the same light by those in the agricultural industry as it is among some of the Republican faithful _ but he's spent time criticizing President Barack Obama and the federal government.

This past weekend in a speech Putnam gave to the Federalist Society he complained about problems in D.C. according to Sunshine State News (a Internet site that has shown a propensity to write about issues important to Florida's sugar companies - a key part of the state's agribusiness community.)

Putnam last week was also quick to criticize Obama's Keystone XL pipeline veto and said that the president "failed to meet the needs of the American people."

As a fifth generation Floridian Putnam has shown a deep knowledge of the state, its politics and its history. He is keenly aware of the fault lines. When asked about the Rodman Dam, for example, when discussing his water policy, he sidestepped the question.

That doesn't mean he will get a free pass especially from environmentalists who can remember when as a young legislator he pushed a bill dealing with public lands and water that then Attorney General Bob Butterworth blasted as a land grab. The financial dealings of his family has come under scrutiny as well.

Of course Cabinet agencies rarely get the same kind of scrutiny that is focused on the governor's office or the Legislature.

But that said _ absent a major blunder _ Putnam should be the one to watch on the GOP side for the next four years.

What's in your wallet? GOP edition

(After a bit of a hiatus, Inside the Tally Bubble news is returning for 2015)

VICTORY BRINGS BIG CHECKS TO SCOTT CAMPAIGN AND PARTY STAFF

Campaign reports filed this week from the Republican Party of Florida show that Gov. Rick Scott's campaign manager Melissa Sellers and other top staffers with the RPOF got some hefty paychecks after a hard fought campaign season.

Campaign reports show that for most of the year Sellers was pulling in bi-weekly payments equivalent to just under $152,000 a year.

But on Nov. 18 - the day after it was announced Sellers would take over as chief of staff for Scott starting on Dec. 1 - the party stroked her a check for $17,500 which would equal about 6 weeks salary.

Back on the state payroll Sellers is earning $150,000 a year - or $1,000 less than her predecessor Adam Hollingsworth.

Sellers wasn't the only person who received a sizable check after the elections were over according to new RPOF filings.

Just some of the others include:

Frank Terraferma, director of House campaigns for the party who helped the GOP get a supermajority in the state House, got a check for more than $55,000 in the middle of November. Terraferma, who was among those who testified at the redistricting trial, appeared to be earning the equivalent of about $162,000 a year.

Tim Saler, deputy campaign manager for Scott, received a check for $16,250 on Nov. 18. or about the equivalent of six weeks pay based on what the campaign was paying him over the length of the campaign.

Matt Moon, communications director for the Scott campaign who departed Florida soon after Scott's victory, got the equivalent of 6 weeks pay on Nov. 18 when he received a check for $16,250.

Chris Finkbeiner, a deputy chief of staff for Scott who became policy director for the re-election campaign, also got a check for $16,250 on Nov.18. A week later it was announced he was going to work for well-known (and Scott friend) lobbyist Bill Rubin.

Pablo Diaz, the campaign manager for Attorney General Pam Bondi, received a $25,000 check on Dec. 31.

Others who got bonus checks include Jackie Schutz, now the governor's communications director, Joel Springer, head of Senate campaigns for the party, Ashley Ross, Senate finance director for the party and Kristin Seidel Lamb, House campaigns finance director.

J.D.'s ROLE IN CABINET INTRIGUE (A HISTORY LESSON)

This past week thrust the Florida Cabinet into the limelight amid the revelations that none of the 3 current members - Adam Putnam, Bondi and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater - apparently knew ahead of time that Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey was forced to resign by the Scott administration. One of the allegations is that Bailey was told he did not have support of Cabinet members but the three Cabinet members have said that just isn't true.

Immediately after that story came out there were rumblings that Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty was also under pressure to resign. When asked about it a spokeswoman for Scott said no announcements were forthcoming, but then said it was good to get "fresh ideas and new leadership." A spokeswoman for Atwater maintained there was "no deal" to get rid of McCarty.

But forcing out the insurance commissioner is a bit tricky thanks to former Sen. J.D. Alexander.

Alexander was in the Florida House at the time legislators were required to craft a way to deal with the new CFO position. (Voters approved a change in 1998 that collapsed the comptroller and treasurer posts on the Cabinet into one job.)

There was much concern that Tom Gallagher, who planned to run for the CFO post in 2002, would have too much power, including the ability to hire and fire the insurance commissioner.

So a compromise was born. The insurance commissioner would report to the governor and Cabinet, but furthermore it would take more than just a majority to hire or fire that person. It would require agreement between the CFO and the governor.

McCarty was hired for the post and approved by then-Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet.

And he's been there ever since.

One key reason is that there hasn't been agreement among top officials on whether to force him out.

While she was in office as CFO Alex Sink made no secret of her displeasure in several instances with McCarty. But McCarty had a strong supporter with Gov. Charlie Crist.

When Scott came into office in 2011 word is he wanted a change. But it was newly-elected Atwater who backed McCarty.

Part of what's been lost in all this is that McCarty has been seen by those who follow the insurance industry as someone who has been good at carrying out the agenda of his bosses - whether it was Crist or Scott.

For his part Alexander, who got upset with McCarty over how the state dealt with State Farm and other insurance issues, later came to regret his role in how the insurance commissioner was picked.

He tried to change law to require the commissioner to be subject to a confirmation vote every 2 years, but the proposal did not pass.

"I am big enough to admit I was wrong,'' Alexander said in 2010.

 

 

Budget sleuthing, smoke and mirrors (Part 1)

In what may seem like a completely different era the Florida Legislature was required to put some things in the public domain about how things wound up in the budget.

For many years legislators were required to at least document some evidence of a request for an earmark, or what was known as the "Community Budget Issue Request System." Legislators were required to fill out forms explaining a request a funding. One example: In 2008 Rep. Will Weatherford requested $3 million for a domestic violence center along with requests for nine other projects.

When the Great Recession caused a massive downturn in the economy there was a decision made by legislative leaders to shut down this effort.

"With the further decline in state revenues, it is my desire to avoid creating unrealistic funding expecations,'' wrote Senate President Jeff Atwater in a 2009 memo.

But even though the Florida Legislature has a budget surplus to work with this year there has been no move to return to this type of tracking system. Back in 2010 Democratic candidate for Chief Financial Officer Loranne Ausley suggested requiring the reinstatement of the system so that "politicians must own their pork spending."

As this story notes - there's no shortage of hometown projects in the roughly $75 billion budget that legislators are working on right now.

The question is how the project got there and whether members of the public and press can deduce the origins of something.

Let's take just one project: $10 million for the "FSU College of Engineering" that has been in the Senate budget a couple of weeks now.

This project - along with $3 million in operational money pushed by Sen. John Thrasher - caused a firestorm on the Senate floor on Thursday. Thrasher acknowledged that the $10 million was for a separate building on the Florida State University campus to help transition to a new engineering school apart from the current joint school operated with Florida A&M University.

FAMU officials strongly oppose any move to separate the two schools and several legislators said it hearkened back to a time when FAMU's law school was shuttered in the '60s and the funding was shifted to a new law school at FSU. Thrasher defended the move by noting the declining enrollment in the FAMU part of the program.

Traditionally it is up to the Senate and House appropriations chairman to be responsible for placing construction items that are part of what is known as the Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) list in the budget.

When asked Sen. Joe Negron, the Senate budget chief, initially said that the money for the school was on the PECO list given to the Florida Legislature by the Board of Governors, the appointed panel that oversees the state university system.

"I believe the Board of Governors had okayed consideration of that request,'' Negron said.

Then when asked if the board had put in for a stand-alone FSU facility Negron said: "It came from us having a certain amount of fixed capital to spend and looking at all the potential places" and deciding to put it toward the stand-alone facility.

"I think it's good policy," Negron continued. "I think we are going to take a good engineering school and turn it into two great schools."

So the question remains: Did the Board of Governors suggest funding for this project?

No.

The Board of Governors submitted a PECO list that calls for spending $30 million over the next two years for the construction of a new building to sit next to the two existing buildings that now make up the college. The House budget includes $15 million for the joint facility.

Furthermore a committee of the board last October was given a presentation on why a new $36 million building at the joint campus is needed.

The presentation prepared by FAMU & FSU officials contended that if funding were delayed there would be a "loss of propsective talented engineering students due to inadequate and outdated educational facilities including the current use of several temporary and dilapidated trailers/portables."

That's right - they are using portables at the current joint school.

Additionally the presentation states this: "The College has far outgrown its existing facilities. The College relies on outdated modular units to temporarily meet its space needs. Since the College is isolated from both main campuses it is difficult to share the resources of the libraries, auditorium, information and other student centered facilities."

State legislators changing the PECO list for universities is nothing new. It's how FSU got money to help build the University Center that now surrounds its football stadium. Legislative leaders have often used their clout to help universities in their own backyard.

But it also has led to some problems.

Atwater himself at the time defended the shutting down of the community budget system because he said it did not prevent the situation that happened when then-House budget chief Ray Sansom placed $6 million funding in the budget for his own hometown college for a project that turned out to be a hangar. 

Sansom wound up being investigated over the deal although charges were eventually dropped after the judge in the case ruled that testimony from a key witness could not be used.

In the immediate aftermath, however, Atwater helped institute a policy that required college and university officials to publicly testify before the Legislature about what projects they actually needed and wanted on the PECO list.

Budget staff called it the "PECO Parade."

And guess what? The Legislature didn't do it last year. It would be a fair guess to suggest they won't do it this year either.

Atwater: I should be held accountable

It's become clear by now that Gov. Rick Scott and his team have decided that their push for a $400 millon cut in automobile tag and registration fees is probably going to be the governor's number one priority heading into the 2014 session.

Scott in one week has already held two out-of-town events to promote his proposal even though the session start is still two-and-a-half months away.

The political calculus about the fee hike is that is gives Scott another way to contrast himself against former Gov. Charlie Crist in next year's governor race. It was Crist who in 2009 signed the $2.2 billion package of tax and fee increases into law.

But there's also another person with a vested interest in all of this. And that's Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater.

Atwater was Senate president in 2009 when legislators crafted the tax and fee hike package as part of a way to close a substantial budget gap. (Legislators also accepted federal stimulus dollars and made budget cuts.)

If Atwater were to ever run for governor (in 2018 assuming he wins a second term as CFO) the package could come back to haunt him. So on the very least Scott's decision to push for a rollback could help Atwater down the line.

But as of right now Atwater is not running away from his decision to support the hike as a way to get through a tough budget year when Florida's economy had been battered due to the Great Recession.

"I took my votes and made my call and I should be held accountable for every choice I made,'' Atwater said.

Atwater points out that the decision to raise the auto registration fees originated in the House, while the Senate's initially backed an increase in cigarette taxes. He contends that the final package was a "middle ground."

But Atwater added that while he takes "ownership" of his decision he also supports Scott's decision to cut the fees now.

"I take ownership of everyone of those calls I made and how we ultimately pieced it together at the time to make it work','' Atwater said. "I think going back and looking at those choices is a good thing and I think the governor is on the right track."

The question moving forward is whether or not Scott - and the Republican Party of Florida - bash Crist over the fee hike.

So far Scott has been measured in how he has been mentioning the fee hike. He has said there's a surplus now and people deserve to get some money back. (It may be another time to note that as the election draws closer Scott has taken a populist bent on which taxes & fees to go after. It was the elimination of the corporate income tax, after all, that was a main component of his 7-7-7 plan.)

But if the Scott campaign and party apparatus go full throttle against Crist on this issue they may be damaging the political future of those waiting in the wings.

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.