The Fine Print

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partisan wrangling, early voting, and limits on the power of the governor

So what constitutes an emergency?

Do long lines at a polling place, or the possibility of an election meltdown because of the surge in voting crowds constitute an emergency? And does the governor have the power to change that?

That in essence is one of the questions raised by the tug-of-war that has erupted in the last two days over early voting.

Gov. Rick Scott was asked Thursday by former state senator Dan Gelber, the Florida Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters to extend this year's period of early voting through Sunday instead of having it end at 7 p.m. on Saturday night as it now scheduled.

In his own letter Gelber warned that the long ballot (due largely to the Legislature placing the entire text of amendments on it) and the long lines was causing "greater dislocation" at the polls then in 2008. That was the year that former Gov. Charlie Crist wrote an executive order that resulted in early voting hours being extended beyond the statutory limit of 96 hours.

Scott, who signed the law in 2011 that cut the number of early voting days back from a maximum of 14 days to the current 8 days, told reporters on Thursday night that he would not grant the request.

Obviously there is a great deal of partisan wrangling going on here.

In the past year there have been federal lawsuits that challenged the reduction in early voting days. And the lawyers for the Legislature were hard pressed to come up with an explanation of why the early voting days were cut to begin with. In one memorable exchange in court earlier this year a federal judge said there was nothing in the record that showed him any good reason for the decision made by lawmakers to cut back on early voting.

Attorney George Meros at that hearing in Jacksonville contended that legislators could have had private conversations with election supervisors that led to that decision. This past week The Palm Beach Post reported that one of the architects of the law that cut back early voting helped write it after consultation with Republican Party officials.

But let's go back to 2008.

Crist's action at the time to extend early voting was met with disbelief from members of his own party. (Remember, he was still a Republican.) And just as importantly legislative leaders _ including then-House Speaker Marco Rubio _ were a bit skeptical of the legal reasoning that Crist used to extend early voting.

In essence, Crist declared that a "state of emergency" existed due to long lines at early voting locations. He used his emergency powers to order supervisors to keep polling places open. Download Executive_Order_Number_08_217

In his order Crist said that there is "a possibility that election officials will be unable to conduct an orderly election and thus residents in our state could be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to vote." So Crist basically used the power that the governor uses when there is a hurricane or other natural disaster to waive a state law.

I have already written in the past how Crist expanded the use of executive power beyond what traditionally had been done by previous governors, even former Gov. Jeb Bush.

The decision by Crist to extend early voting hours was seen by some Republicans as a decision that helped Barack Obama win Florida.

But at the time Rubio and other top Republicans were reluctant to go into court to challenge the executive order. Part of the problem was timing since the decision came just days before the election and it would have been hard to get a judge to halt the extended hours.

Gelber for his part has argued that the prospect of a problem with an election does in fact constitute an emergency. Plus, he cites the fact that Bush did it as well.

That's true but Bush extended voting hours by 2 hours on Election Day because of problems during the 2002 primary with late opening precincts and ballots that wouldn't scan.

Many major counties were using new voting machines for the first time that had put in place in the wake of the chaotic 2000 presidential election where the vote in Florida wasn't settled until more than a month after Election Day.

In one notable case during that primary former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno _ who was running in the Democratic primary for governor _ had to wait to vote at her own polling place in Miami-Dade County because of problems with the machines.

Now if Election Day turns into a major hassle _ and there are problems at the polling places _ you can expect Democrats to tell Scott "I told you so" and they will use it as ammunition against him on the 2014 campaign trail.

But given the nature of this election you would have to wonder if Scott would have been challenged even if he did issue an executive order.

This time around _ unlike four years ago _ the election result is very much in doubt and it's hard to imagine either side taking a pass on this. At least, however, we would have gotten a judge to decide the extent of the governor's emergency powers.

(Editor note: Sorry for the lack of entries on this blog in the last few weeks. Look for that change in the days and weeks ahead. I truly do appreciate all of those who have enjoyed this blog _ and given me compliments on it since launching it three years ago. My plan is use it to augment _ and go beyond the stories that I do for The Associated Press.)

Rick Scott vs. the Tea Party?

Last fall a group of conservative activists including some Tea Party leaders who backed Rick Scott for governor went into court to get a federal judge to strike down some of the state's campaign finance laws.

Flash forward several months and it turns out that backing Scott doesn't guarantee a free pass with his administration.

The state of Florida -- led by the top elections official appointed by Scott - is actually mounting a vigorous legal defense.

If the lawsuit is successful, groups could raise money to challenge constitutional amendments without having to disclose their donors or include disclaimers on any ads that they run. There are already seven amendments on the 2012 ballot.

This week both sides laid out their legal arguments that will be used to decide whether the state’s campaign finance laws are constitutional. The case is scheduled to go to trial in September but a ruling is expected without having to hold a trial.

Most of the arguments center on recent federal campaign finance rulings - including last year’s contentious Citizens United case that struck down restrictions on independent  “electioneering communications.’’

But lawyers for Secretary of State Kurt Browning -- who is now the main defendant in the lawsuit -- argued in their filings that “invalidating Florida’s challenged political committee laws will destroy the well recognized informational interest of the public to know who is speaking to them about campaign issues.”

You can read more about it here at the Florida Tribune.

Does Florida have a voter fraud problem?

As the GOP-controlled Legislature pushes ahead with a widespread elections bill, those pushing the bill deny that it has anything to do with targeting voters who could be voting Democratic in next year's crucial presidential election.

Instead the rallying cry behind the bill has been that the legislation is needed in order to combat voter fraud.

"We have to protect this election process and operate it correctly so that result has integrity for everyone of you,'' said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala and sponsor of the House version - HB 1355. "We have to protect this election process and operate it correctly so that result has integrity for everyone of you. If the vote matters as much to you as it does to me, why don’t you want to protect it?"

Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando, got up on the House floor and said that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has repeatedly been called into look at voter fraud across the state.

Eisnaugle did not cite any specific examples during his House floor remarks. But when asked about it later, a House press person produced four documents.

Several of them dealt with allegations of voter registration fraud. The proposed elections bill would impose new restrictions on third-party voter registration groups, a move which has brought the threat of litigation from the League of Women Voters, which successfully sued in the past over restrictions.

Eisnaugle produced a news story from 2004 that cited that FDLE has said up a statewide task force to investigate allegations regarding absentee ballots and other types of voter fraud. FDLE did in fact set up this task force on the eve of the 2004 elections - but that task force did not wind up arresting anyone or charging anyone.

Arrests were made in 2009 in connection to voter registration fraud and Eisnaugle included a Fox News story about it.

According to an FDLE release associated with the same arrests, 11 people connected with the now-defunct Association for Community Reform Now (ACORN) were charged with falsifying voter registration forms. But that press release also points out that it was ACORN itself that discovered problems with the registration forms from 2008 and reported it to the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, which then passed on the information to FDLE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

"Quality control workers at ACORN noticed that some of the phone numbers listed on the application were out of service or incorrect and that the handwriting or signatures on the applications were similar,'' states the release.

The news story cited by Eisnaugle includes a statement from Katherine Fernandez Rundle that no one associated with the false forms actually voted.

Eisnaugle also cited a voter registration form that included the name Mickey Mouse on it. A St. Petersburg Times story from 2008 does say that someone did fill out the form with that name on it. But the Times story also notes that the voter registration form was rejected by Orange County elections officials.

Lastly, Eisnaugle included a report from the Equal Justice Foundation regarding voter fraud and FDLE. The organization is based in Colorado and also has information on its website that says no-fault divorce laws were orchestrated by radical feminists and borrowed from the Soviets and that women are just as likely, or more likely to engage in domestic violence as men.

The EJI report deals primarily with allegations regarding absentee ballot fraud which was in fact widely documented back in '90s and was the primary reason that a mayoral election in Miami was overturned. The report cited by Eisnaugle even calls absentee ballots the "tool of choice" in fraud.

Here's a copy of the report: Download Voter fraud report

It's worth nothing that absentee ballot allegations were also at the center of an FDLE investigation involving elections in Orlando where Mayor Buddy Dyer was accused of paying someone to collect absentee ballots. (A law put in place following the Miami election.) The charges, however, against Dyer were dismissed by prosecutors who said there was "no evil intent" in relation to the incident.

 The House bill that was passed last week does not make widespread changes to absentee ballots.

It does include a provision that all absentee ballots must now include a warning on them that tell voters that signature on absentee ballots must match those on file at the elections office or the ballot won't count. The bill also includes a new provision that limits the ability of a court to overrule a canvassing board decision to reject an absentee ballot.

But the biggest change that could affect absentee ballot fraud is a controversial change that forces someone who wishes to change their address on Election Day to vote a provisional ballot.

The argument behind this change is to make sure that no one can vote twice - once by absentee and then again on Election Day. It would appear to affect college students since this prohibition only applies to those who are changing their address from one county to another.

Florida law, however, also requires that provisional ballots must be cast in the right precinct or the ballot is invalid. So there is a chance that a college student who shows up at the wrong polling place will not have their ballot counted.

Now, there have been news reports in the past decade that have found examples of people being registered to vote in two different states such as both New York and Florida and a New York Daily News article from 2004 found instances where it appeared that people did in fact vote in both places.

But what about voting absentee and then changing your address on Election Day?

Chris Cate, a spokesman for the Florida Secretary of State's office, said in an e-mail that "no cases of multiple voting in Florida during the 2008 or 2010 election have been referred to the Department of State. However, it’s possible that a Supervisor of Elections could have made a complaint without our knowledge. They have the ability to refer cases directly to the local state attorney."

Cate in a subsequent e-mail also pointed out that the state's electronic voting database is designed to prevent "voter registration fraud."

This is one element of the ongoing debate that has not received a lot of conversation but Florida now a list of every registered voter in the state. This database is supposed to be constantly updated to help the state delete people who have died or removed if they are convicted of a felony. The Department of State is also supposed to look for duplicate registrations.

Additionally, the Republican-led Legislature previously put in place the so-called "no match" requirement that is also designed to cut down on voter registration fraud. It states that the information on a voter registration application must match state and federal databases or the person is not eligible to vote.

The law was challenged but it was eventually upheld by a federal appeals court.

In an opinion piece, Secretary of State Kurt Browning in 2008 wrote: "This is a good law that will help our voter rolls achieve more accuracy and less fraud, while creating minimal inconvenience for prospective voters."

 

 

 

There's a few surprises tucked inside this year's elections bill

A major elections bill that is now headed to the House floor came under fire for the way it changes rules for voter registration groups and how it changes law regarding voter address changes.

Critics charged that it was a "voter suppression" bill.

But the legislation - HB 1355 - has several other major provisions that didn't get much attention.

The sprawling 151-page amendment that was adopted by a House panel on Thursday also does this:

* It changes next year's primary date back to Aug. 14, which means the election won't clash anymore with the date of the Republican National Convention. The current date for the primary is Aug. 28.

* It creates a new fundraising opportunity for people who thinking about jumping into a race. Under the legislation people who are "testing the waters" could start raising money that they could use to pay for polls, travel and telephone calls. It would appear by the wording that a person doesn't have to report these contributions or expenditures unless they eventually become a candidate. The language is written in a way to suggest that the total amount of funding that can be raised would be $10,000, but it's not exactly clear.

* It includes a provision that could lead to more legal challenges against candidates. Basically the bill states that if a judge throws a candidate off the ballot because they were not properly qualified a political party cannot put someone else on the ballot in their place.

* There's some new provisions related to minor parties that could have been inspired by the Republican Party smackdown with the Tea Party last year. In case you don't remember, a group registered the name with the state and put in candidates in several legislative races. Republicans cried foul over some of the candidates and tried to remove them from the ballot. There was also a back and forth from other Tea Party groups contending that the Tea Party registered with the state had nothing to do with real Tea Party activists. Anyway, the new requirements for minor parties contain a provision that if they are not carried out promptly that the state can then decertify the party.

* It tinkers again with the laws regarding third-party groups known as electioneeering communication organizations or 527s in such a way that it would allow them to remain in the shadows longer. The groups would not have to register with the state until they spend at least $5,000 either 30 days before the primary or 60 days before the general election. The law now says that the group must file it is raises money or spends money in that same time frame.

A Senate version of this legislation is scheduled to be considered on Friday morning.

It does have differences. For example, the Senate bill moves the primary date to Sept. 4. The Senate measure also does not include the "testing the waters" provision. Instead the Senate bill includes language that says that political parties, 527s and those new "affiliated party committees" or leadership funds can conduct polls to determine the "viability" of future candidates. Those poll results can be shared with the potential candidate and it will not be considered a contribution.

The Senate bill also cuts down on the period of early voting. Instead of starting 15 days before the election it would begin 7 days. This change is sure to draw fire from many Democrats since the perception is that Republicans rely on absentee ballots, while Democrats utilize early voting.

 

 

Haridopolos and session fundraising part 2

Senate President Mike Haridopolos is expected to announce a significant fundraising haul since he jumped into the race for U.S. Senate.

The 2011 first quarter numbers for federal candidates is due by the end of the week.

Haridopolos held a series of fundraisers before session, but said recently that he stopped holding them once session started in March. An earlier post relayed an exchange about his fundraising activities and his contention that he follows the law when it comes to fundraising.

That post discussed a federal court ruling from Georgia that has been cited in the past by candidates - both Republican and Democrat - to justify raising money for federal races during session. It was also pointed out that an attorney for the Florida House raised questions about the ruling, but said it was ok for House members to raise money for federal races because House rules specifically exempt federal candidates.

After asking about it several weeks earlier, the Senate on Friday produced its own legal opinion regarding the matter that is dated from 2008.

So to be fair here's the basic premise of that opinion.

Jason Vail, then the general counsel for the Florida Senate, wrote a letter to then-Sen. Bill Posey who had asked about raising money for his Congressional bid during session.

Vail's essential opinion is that Congress own federal campaign laws supersede any state laws and he cites both a 1993 opinion and the 1996 ruling from the federal appeals court in Atlanta previously mentioned.

Vail acknowledges that the 1996 ruling, known as Teper v. Miller, may have "possible weaknesses" but he goes on to say that people are entitled to rely on advisory opinions from the Federal Election Commission and that the commission has concluded that federal law preempted the Georgia law that prohibited state legislators from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions during legislative session.

Vail acknowledges that the Georgia case involved a law and that "the main difference is that in our case, a Senate rule is involved rather than a state statute." Vail then cites a 1979 case that says federal preemption can operate against state rules "therefore I do not consider the distinction to be meaningful."

Bottom line by Vail: The federal government trumps Senate rules and that candidates for federal office are under no obligation to follow them.

Rivera and others used leftover campaign cash on computers, cigars and meals

This past weekend the Miami Herald reported that an ongoing investigation into U.S. Rep. David Rivera was focusing on how he spent leftover campaign funds. The Herald story focused primarily on money spent by Rivera for his state Senate campaign. (In the end, Rivera dropped out of that race and ran for Congress.)

This isn't the first time that Rivera - and other lawmakers - have been asked about how they use leftover campaign cash.

Here's a first draft of a story from 2009 that I worked on for a news organization. (The reasons that the story never ran included that too much time had passed because the story focused on 2008, that the story neeeded to be more comprehensive, etc.)

But the story did include include comments from Rivera at the time.

Florida state lawmakers have used leftover campaign money on everything from new computers, cigars and meals months and weeks after they were re-elected, a review of 2008 campaign records show.

State law requires legislators running for office to shut down their campaign accounts 90 days after an election. That law also spells out how any leftover money can be used, including letting legislators give it to charity or back to donors or use it to thank voters.

But a review showed that dozens of questionable uses by legislators, with money spent on meals, gas, cigars, and trips to places such as Best Buy and Office Depot.  

Sen. Larcenia Bullard, D-Miami, spent more than $100 at an Ethopian restaurant in Miami nearly two months after she was re-elected without opposition in June 2008. Her campaign records also show she used campaign money to pay for a meeting at the New York City hotel that features a restaurant run by famed television chef Gordon Ramsay.

Bullard, who was re-elected without opposition in June 2008, denied knowing anything about the expenses when asked.

“I have no knowledge of it at all,’’ said Bullard, who said she wasn’t in New York City last summer.

Rep. Eddy Gonzalez, R- Hialeah, spent $486 for “campaign cigars” more than a month after Election Day. Rep. Ronald Brise, D-North Miami, spent money on gas and even a $2 parking charge after he was elected without opposition last June.

Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, spent $2,386 at Best Buy on Sept. 14 to replace a “stolen computer.”  The purchase came nearly three months after she was re-elected without opposition. She said her home was burglarized and the thief took off with the computer she used to do campaign reports.

Rep. Ron Saunders, D-Key West, spent money on gas at convenience stores and money on meals at restaurants in both Tallahassee and Key West in the days after his Republican opponent withdrew from the race. Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, spent  $5,400 at Best Buy the day before the election on “information technology.” He then made two more trips to Best Buy and spent nearly $3,000 in December.

Rivera said he bought equipment, including computers and printers, to put together mailers to thank voters. He was allowed to keep the computers once he was done using it for campaign work.

“You also get to keep the paper clips you buy during  a campaign,’’ said Rivera. “I’m not the first candidate to buy a computer for a campaign.’’

 

 

 

 

 

Federal judge won't let Gov. Scott off the hook

Put this down in the "whatever happened to?" department.

A federal judge has refused to end a lawsuit that then-candidate Rick Scott used to block a key part of Florida’s public campaign finance system.

Scott last summer won a preliminary injunction from a federal appeals court that said the state could not give GOP rival Bill McCollum a dollar-for-dollar match of taxpayer money if Scott spent more than $24.9 million on his campaign.

The ruling was a blow to McCollum’s campaign who could not compete with Scott’s financial edge. Scott won the primary and then went on to spend roughly $73 million to win the governor’s race.

After Scott won the primary, his lawyers and lawyers for the Department of State asked a Tallahassee federal judge for a permanent injunction against the matching money provision.

But U.S. Judge Robert Hinkle in December shot down the request and instead put a hold on the lawsuit while the U.S. Supreme Court decides campaign finance cases from other states.

Hinkle noted that then interim Secretary of State Dawn Roberts had changed her position to fit the viewpoint of Scott.

“There is every reason to believe her change of heart was prompted solely by a good faith analysis of the evolving law in this area,” wrote Hinkle, noting the appeals court injunction. “But it is also true Ms. Roberts’ new position accords with that of the plaintiff – her soon to be new boss. The circumstances raise an issue, at least, over whether the court should act at all, and whether, if the court is going to act, the state’s interest in defending the statute should have independent representation.”

Republicans wanted to end the state’s public finance system entirely, but the amendment that would have removed it from the Florida Constitution was defeated by voters. 

Taxpayers wound up spending more than $5.82 million on campaigns in 2010.That amount could have been higher but the combination of the ruling in the Scott case - as well as Alex Sink's decision to decline any public money kept down the overall total.

Charlie Crist's defection from GOP could still leave a mark

If you believe the multitude of polls out there right now, the consensus is that Gov. Charlie Crist's bid to become Florida's next U.S. Senator is doomed.

Crist bolted the GOP last April to run as an independent candidate after it was clear that Marco Rubio would defeat him in a Republican primary. At first he surged ahead in the polls but now all of them having him trail Rubio by double-digits.

Yet Crist's decision to leave his party could still have a ripple effect after he's gone.

That's because a new report released this week by the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee recommends making it harder for candidates to switch parties and avoid primaries. While there is no guarantee that a bill will be filed, committee reports are often seen as a precursor to future legislation.

The report suggests that Florida lawmakers should change the law so that candidates cannot change their parties less than a year before qualifying begins. It notes that "requiring a candidate to make an ultimate decision on party membership or NPA status 16-18 months before the general election would effectively eliminate or drastically reduce last-minute, self-serving decisions regarding candidacy."

The same report also suggests that Florida needs a “sore loser” law that would ensure that no future candidate could lose a primary and then still show up on the general election ballot. The Senate report says that a close look at the existing law shows that there is no actual “prohibition” on a candidate running as someone with no party affiliation following a primary defeat. U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut ran as a third-party candidate in 2006 after he was defeated in the Democratic primary.

You can read more about the report here at the Florida Tribune.