The Fine Print

The coming clash for Tallahassee lobbyists and other lobbying tidbits

Consider this an all-lobbyist edition of inside the bubble news....

While much of America is waiting for Nov. 8 to come, the date that Tallahassee's lobbying corps is waiting for is Nov. 10.

That's the date that incoming House Speaker Richard Corcoran (pictured left) has said he will distribute proposed new rules for the Florida House.

And judging by the chatter among lobbyists, they are viewing it as an oncoming train that will roll right over them and greatly affect the $100 million-plus a year influence industry.

Corcoran, a Republican from Land O' Lakes, has made no secret of his intention to blow up the process or in the words of his GOP caucus designation speech "cleaning up our own house."

And that means adopting rules and laws that will greatly impact what lobbyists can and can't do - and impact what legislators can and can't do.

One of his most notable proposals is his plan to end the "revolving door" between the Legislature and lobbying by pursuing a constitutional amendment that would bar legislators from lobbying the legislative or executive branch for six years not two.

But another big change  - which Corcoran himself alluded to a year ago - and which is expected to show up in the new rules is a requirement that lobbyists disclose a lot more information.

Lobbyists will be required to not only name their clients, but to force them to disclose - at least on the House side - the names of the bills, amendments and even the appropriation items they are lobbying House members on.

There's no doubt that if this goes through it will be one of the most substantial changes to lobbying since then-Senate President Tom Lee shepherded the gift ban bill that also required contract lobbyists to disclose (somewhat) how much they are getting paid by their clients. Corcoran's proposed change will allow reporters and the public to match the money paid to the lobbyists to the items that they are lobbying on.

Another big change under consideration (and first reported by The Tampa Bay Times) is a proposal to ban local governments including cities, counties and school boards from hiring contract lobbyists.

Corcoran, who has been unwilling to share many details of the proposed rules because there's still being worked on, told the Times that it's a "disgrace" that local governments use taxpayer dollars to hire contract lobbyists.

There are rumblings that there are many other changes in the works - including serious changes in the budget process now utilized by the Legislature.

Corcoran - with House Speaker Steve Crisafulli - already forced lawmakers to once again attach their names to budget items they were seeking. The question is whether there will be additional changes designed to bring additional transparency to the way the budget is crafted. Right now items drop into the budget at the last minute with little idea where it came from or who it will benefit.

Now will there be pushback? Absolutely.

Corcoran's motives are already under question, with some positing that this is his way of drawing attention to himself in a possible run-up to a 2018 bid for governor. Corcoran for the record demurs when he is asked the question and said he is gearing up to be speaker.

Regardless, however, the adoption of sweeping House rules will immediately place attention on the Florida Senate - which has had a rocky relationship with House in recent years. Will the Senate adopt similar rules on its side? Or will senators be forced to explain why a higher level of transparency works for one chamber but not the other?

When lawmakers convene for their organizational session on Nov. 22 it could be the start of a tumultuous period for the Florida Legislature and for the hundreds of men and women who rely on the Legislature for their living.

TALLAHASSEE'S LIKELY NEXT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN WAS ON PAYROLL OF BIG TRUMP BACKER

And speaking of lobbying, former state senator - and likely member of Congress after Nov. 8 - Al Lawson has been straight forward that he has worked as a lobbyist for the last several years for several clients including Florida State University and on behalf of school choice proponents.

But financial disclosures Lawson filed earlier this year revealed that he was on the payroll of the high-powered lobbying firm of Brian Ballard, who is a top fundraiser for Republicans including GOP president nominee Donald Trump. Ballard also has lobbied on behalf of Trump.

Lawson's financial disclosure filed May 16 with the clerk of the U.S. House lists Ballard Partners as source of income exceeding $5,000. This form said that Lawson's duties for Ballard Partners were "lobbying."

Three days later Lawson filed an amended form that changed his duties for Ballard from "lobbying" to "consulting."

(It's worth noting that Lawson's state lobbying registration filings do not show him registering for lobbying on behalf of Ballard.)

When asked about it a few weeks ago, Khloe Greenwood, a spokeswoman for Lawson's campaign said: "Senator Lawson is not currently on payroll with Ballard Partners. He was a consultant during the legislative session earlier this year, and provided counsel for governmental and public affairs on a variety of projects."

Still the connection to Ballard and his firm may have proved useful to Lawson in other ways.

Jacksonville reporters noted that Susie Wiles, a top Trump campaign operative in Florida who also works for Ballard Partners, helped Lawson in his campaign to unseat incumbent U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown. Lawson defeated Brown, who is currently facing federal fraud charges, in the Democratic primary. In one article there's a paraphrased quote from Wiles saying that the reason she's helping Lawson is because he had a good relationship with the Ballard firm.

Well, as his federal filings show, that was definitely the case.

5 biggest questions for the 2016 session

After one of the most tumultuous years since Republicans assumed control of the Florida Legislature - the GOP-controlled House and Senate return this week for a 60-day jaunt that many legislative leaders hope/predict is relatively calm and uneventful heading into what could be a highly unpredictable election year.

Most insiders of course can recount the score: The budget meltdown, the abrupt ending of the 2015 regular session, two failed redistricting special sessions, a budget finally passed with days to go before a state government shutdown.

Legislators are returning early this year as part of an experiment to move up the date so that lawmakers can be back home in time to spend spring break with their families. (It would take a change in the constitution to move up session start for every year.)

Here then are the 5 biggest questions of session:

Can everybody just get along?

The expectation is that the resolution of the long-simmering Senate presidency battle (which was won by Sen. Joe Negron) and the Senate's tabling of Medicaid expansion should make it easier to reach a consensus on the state budget and other issues. Throw in the fact that it's an election year and there is an anticipation that there will be a willingness to compromise. But that may not capture the complicated situation at hand.

First all, there's Gov. Rick Scott who enters the session with a longer wish list than normal. And it's not just the $1 billion tax cut package and Enterprise Florida reforms that the governor wants (although that appears to be a big ask). Scott put together a $3 billion gambling deal with the Seminoles and he's also pursuing his health care transparency package.

Last year Scott showed that there is a price to pay (through his substantial budget vetoes) if you don't go his way. So you can be assured that remains on the minds of many legislators.

But let's not forget there are some Scott agency heads whose fates remained unresolved, or that there remains a split in fundraising/political activities that has resulted in the Senate and Scott raising money separately from the party. You can also throw in the whole unsettled situation in the Senate due to a redrawn state Senate map that could theoretically force some senators to moderate their positions.

Lastly, a key question is how supporters of former Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio in the Legislature will view Scott's decision to nudge ever so closely to endorsing GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Say what you will about the sausage-making in the state Capitol a lot of it still depends on connections and relationships and many of the items cited could play a role. And if Scott is viewed as isolated from members of his party then there is even less willingness to work with him.

Is it possible to ever reach an agreement on gambling?

Well, you certainly wouldn't want to bet on it given the competing forces (including dog and horse tracks from outside of South Florida) who don't like some of the fine print on the deal that Scott reached with the Seminole Tribe. In the past few years attempts to pass major gambling bills have floundered amid the Scylla and Charybdis that exists in the Legislature on this issue.

But Scott remains a wild card on this. The governor, who began his business career as a deal maker, put together a proposed compact with tribal officials that was guaranteed to get big headlines and promised a big payout.

Throughout his time as governor Scott has remained, for lack of a better word, agnostic about gambling in the state. In other words, the governor isn't going to back the tribe, the dog tracks, the anti-gambling factions including Disney, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, or even Trump at all cost.

It would not be surprising if Scott's approach is basically: 'Hey, I helped put together a deal. Tribe, it's up to you and your lobbyists to get it passed.' And more importantly, is Scott amenable to changes as long as the overarching achievement - the money in the state's bank account is unchanged? Signs point to yes.

Tribal officials - who are still locked in a court battle over whether they can keep blackjack tables in their casinos under the 2010 deal that expired last summer - may have to decide if they need to cobble together something that makes everyone happy. Or decide if they could take their chances and just wait until next year.

Scott has been very deferential so far in his public pronouncements and has made it clear that it's up to the Legislature to work something out. If it doesn't happen the governor can maintain it wasn't his fault.

How many gun bills will reach their target?

Apart from the budget and gambling battles, you can expect a fair amount of attention in the media to be focused on the gun bills already moving through the Legislature. These include bills allowing open carry of firearms, guns on college campuses and changes to the Stand Your Ground law.

The decision by legislative leaders to already allow these bills to move through legislative committees even before the start of the 60-day session is a sign that there is considerable support for them.

And President Barack Obama's decision to pursue actions on guns on the federal level will likely add momentum as GOP legislators will be able to contrast their actions at the state level with what's happening with D.C.

Plus long-time National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer has made it abundantly clear that she and her supporters have no plans to modify their stances on these bills. Hammer has told everyone that she will be keep pushing the legislation for as long as it takes.

Put that together and it would reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of the bills stand a good chance of reaching Scott's desk later this year. Yes, there is opposition to the various bills, including Florida State University President John Thrasher and university police chiefs on campus carry to some of Florida's sheriff's on open carry.

But the gun bills give Republicans a chance to do something that will fire up their own political base heading into what could be a chaotic election season.

There is a caveat with all of this though and that's the unresolved question of whether the new Senate districts (which appear to tilt toward Democrats) will persuade some senators that contentious issues of this sort need to be put on hold until 2017.

How will the growing power of Joe Negron and Richard Corcoran affect the process?

The general theory about the Legislature is that the influence/power of the outgoing legislative leaders begins to ebb during their second session while the clout of their successors begins to grow.

There have been exceptions to that rule over the years i.e. Dean Cannon as House speaker and John McKay as Senate president.

There will be those who will make snide comments that Corcoran, a former top aide to Rubio and current House budget chief, already has considerable sway in the House. Yes there are many signs that he does wield a good deal of influence, but expect it to get even larger.

Among some insiders who follow the process the operating theory right now is that House Speaker Steve Crisafulli and Senate President Andy Gardiner will get to watch their top priorities pass in the opening days of the session. (For Crisafulli, a potential Agriculture Commissioner candidate, that's a comprehensive water bill, while for Gardiner it's bills to aid families with children who have developmental disabilities.)

After that moment of comity, the rest of the session will be conducted in Corcoran and Negron's shadow. That could affect plenty of important bills, whether it's Negron's support of a measure to legalize/regulate fantasy sports to the judiciary reforms that Corcoran has already promised to push through.

Other considerations: Negron, an attorney, has clashed in the past with the insurance industry so that may make it hard for them to push through changes opposed by trial attorneys such as the revamp of assignment of benefits. Corcoran - along with his successor Rep. Jose Oliva - have expressed skepticism about for targeted business incentives like those championed by Scott or for items such as film incentives or subsidies to sports teams and operations.

Will this really be a do-nothing year for the Florida Legislature?

Talk to most lobbyists and they will quietly concur: This may be a really tough year to get anything substantial passed.

The reasons are many, starting with the epic battles of last year (see No. 1) to what appears to be an unpredictable election year (see Trump, Donald.)

There is a feeling right now that any attempt to move major changes/reforms in key areas will be difficult. It's not just the gambling deal with the tribe. This could flow to everything else including the types of tax cuts, health care changes pursued by the House to some of the environmental bills being pursued to alimony reform and major education bills. If Republican leaders are intent on putting aside any public disagreements then the easiest way may be to just deep-six many of the more contentious proposals.

As of this past weekend, 1,644 bills have been filed which does appear to put the Legislature on pace to meet last year's totals so maybe legislators themselves remain somewhat optimistic that they can things done. There is always a natural tendency for the Legislature to try to fix/improve/change things and have something to campaign about in the fall.

But the most substantial year for legislation in recent years was 2011 when you had a new governor and a supermajority in the Legislature following the 2010 wave year for the GOP. That track record suggests that 2016 will be relatively quiet.

A new champion for Florida's universities emerges

For those who follow the intrigue of internal legislative politics, the Wednesday designation of Sen. Joe Negron as the Republican nominee for Senate president will bring an end to a fascinating drama that featured everything from betrayal, to whispers of cross-party courtships to the supposed root cause of the dysfunction that had permeated the Senate as it lurched from a budget crisis to a redistricting crisis to... you name it.

Negron, as Tallahassee insiders know, was able to obtain the presidency over Sen. Jack Latvala. A deal that resulted in Latvala bowing out - while he got the nod as the next appropriations chairman - was announced in early November.

There's no doubt that a Latvala presidency would have been an interesting sight - especially given his admonitions at times to some of the top employees of the administration of Gov. Rick Scott.

But the elevation of Negron may bring its own drama to watch.

And that's because it appears that the 54-year-old Stuart attorney may be willing to challenge the current game plan for Florida's universities that has been advocated by the governor.

Scott's foray into Florida's higher education universe has been one that has created conflicts, controversy and finally acquiescence from GOP legislators and university officials.

Some of Scott's initial efforts - like the time he urged then Florida A&M University President James Ammons be suspended during an ongoing investigation into the hazing related death of drum major Robert Champion - were met with fierce resistance.

Scott in 2012 backed the creation of the stand-alone Florida Polytechnic University despite being urged by his own chief of staff to veto the bill.

Scott also played a role in the decision to keep Bernie Machen on as University of Florida president. Machen had planned to step down at the end of 2013 but said he was persuaded by Scott to remain on board longer because the governor would help him elevate UF. This came a few months after Scott had vetoed a bill to aid both UF and Florida State University because it would have given both schools additional powers to raise tuition above limits set in state law. What was odd about the entire incident is that emails show that UF trustees were on the verge of naming a new president just days before it was announced Machen was staying.

Scott has also been firm about lowering Florida's debt obligations - and that has meant he has been opposed to issuing bonds for such traditional uses as new university buildings (a move that has perplexed university trustees). He also gone along with efforts to incorporate performance funding into university appropriations.

But Scott's chief mantra when it comes to higher education is that Florida should do everything possible to keep the cost of higher education as low as possible - saying it should remain affordable because residents need a college education to get a decent job.

He's pushed colleges to create low-cost degree programs. The Republican governor has also since 2012 engaged in a unwavering battle against tuition hikes. Scott began calling tuition hikes a form of a tax hike and he pushed legislators to roll back a state law adopted under then Gov. Charlie Crist that was intended to give universities the ability to raise tuition without having to get annual approval from the Florida Legislature.

In the beginning, then House Speaker Will Weatherford resisted Scott on tuition. During one visit to the Board of Governors _ the panel that oversees the state university system _ he even held up a cellphone and said that students were paying more for their bills then for tuition. But Weatherford finally gave way to Scott and during the session ahead of the 2014 elections he backed the legislation that eliminated the ability of most universities - save UF and FSU - from being able to raise tuition on their own.

After winning that battle, Scott has forged onward even trying unsuccessfully in 2015 to place limits on graduate student tuition.

But Negron appears ready to change the conversation away from costs and instead focus on it on long-term goals.

He plans on Wednesday to outline his steps to make Florida's universities "national destination elite universities" that attract out-of-state students in the way that University of North Carolina and University of Michigan do.

"I’m laying down a marker that universities are a priority," said Negron this week. "I think Florida has made great progress, but I think when you look at states like North Carolina and Virginia I think we can help our universities get to the next level."

Negron, who put three kids through college including two who attended UF and FSU, said he views universities as "indispensable" to creating an "economically vital state."

Negron's concerns about higher education aren't necessarily new. He was the main force behind a move to limit the ability of state colleges to start offering four-year degree programs which Negron labeled "mission creep" by schools who initially started out as only offering two-year degrees.

Among the things that Negron says he wants to do is help universities recruit and retain faculty and make sure the state's graduate schools have what they need to compete nationally.

Of course, all of these things would cost more money. The two main sources for Florida's public universities are tuition or increased state support and that''s where things get complicated.

Negron, who was at one time the Senate budget chief, says he believes there is enough money already in the budget to increase funding to universities.

But he also has a difference of opinion about tuition.

"I agree we want to make sure a university education is affordable," Negron said. "But Florida has one of the lowest tuition rates in the country...Getting a four-year degree is very reasonable."

Negron is expected to give more details on his plans during his designation speech. The key question will be, however, whether Negron's push will open yet another battlefront in a never-ending tug-of-war with the governor.

John Thrasher's secret lobbying dilemma

There's no question that the decision by powerful State Sen. John Thrasher to seek the presidency of Florida State University has created a bit of a controversy especially among some members of the faculty and students.

A lot of the debate has centered on Thrasher's political career where he has been a loyal Republican who has also been willing to cross swords with unions and public school teachers.

Thrasher has also had a dramatic role in the reshaping of higher education in Florida.

At a restaurant meeting in Orlando with then-Gov. Jeb Bush it was then-House Speaker Thrasher who drew up on a napkin the plan to dissolve the statewide Board of Regents and replace it with local boards of trustees at each state university. It was the regents who at the time had thwarted at least initially plans to bring a medical school to FSU. (The plan was carried out, only to have part of it rolled back by a constitutional amendment creating the current Board of Governors.)

The big argument that supporters of Thrasher - including local political heavyweights such as former Sen. Al Lawson - is that Thrasher's presidency will help FSU in its quest to attain additional financial support in the halls of the state Capitol.

There is an overriding belief that FSU's bid to push itself into the top ranks of American research universities cannot be achieved without an increase in state money. One FSU professor speaking last week to the the presidential search committee lauded FSU alumnus Thrasher as a "successful and passionate" advocate for the school who could help bring in the added money to bolster faculty salaries and build the school's infrastructure.

There's an argument that can be made that the fractious nature of the Legislature - combined with a chief executive now in power who has made it clear that he wants universities to spend less not more - means that even someone with tremendous political capital could have difficulty achieving some sort of major windfall from the state.

But there's a more simple dilemma to deal with: John Thrasher can't really lobby the Legislature.

At least not for the next two years.

Florida's ethics laws, as they have been interpreted by the state's Ethics Commission, make it clear that Thrasher can only have a limited engagement with state legislators.

The commission has dealt with the issue several times, but most recently in 2009 with the hiring of former State Rep. Joe Pickens as a college president.

The commission has taken the position that Florida's Constitution does not allow a former legislator to lobby the Legislature even if it is viewed in the capacity of a public service position. The argument is that the prohibition applies to a higher education position because the goal of the two-year ban is to make sure that legislators do not take actions designed to help them attain the future job. (Just this past session as Thrasher was considering whether to apply for the job he pushed to split up FSU's joint engineering college with Florida A&M University.)

From that opinion:

While we have no doubt that the former member here, like the members at issue in CEO 00-7 and CEO 00-18, is merely furthering a career of service to the public, it is clear to us that neither "opportunities for personal profit through lobbying after leaving the Legislature" nor the potential for influence peddling or the appearance thereof, are exclusive to situations where the employment held after legislative service involves lobbying for private entities.

In the context of conflicts of interests we have often said that the prohibition does not hinge on the personal integrity of the individual, but is rather is prophylactic in nature. CEO 81-76, CEO 97-15. The same is true here; the prohibitions of Article II, Section 8(e) and Section 112.313(9) are clearly and directly stated, and are designed as preventive measures. As we said in CEO 81-57, "the provision seeks to preserve the integrity of the legislative process by ensuring that decisions of members of the Legislature will not be made out of regard for possible employment as lobbyists.

Since legislative decisions affect those in the public sector as well as those in the private sector, it would seem to be equally important that legislative decisions not be colored by regard for future lobbying opportunities in behalf of public entities." For these reasons we recede from our opinions in CEO 00-7 and CEO 00-18, and return to our position, stated in CEO 81-57 and CEO 90-4, that former members are prohibited from representing, for compensation, another person or entity, be it public or private, before the Legislature for a period of two years following their leaving office."

To be clear - this doesn't mean that a university president can't talk to the Legislature.

A legislative committee chairman could indeed "invite" Thrasher to appear before them to discuss issues, including funding issues. But it does mean that there are limits on Thrasher's ability to independently seek out and ask legislators for help during the frenzied 60-day period when legislators work late into the night hammering out a state budget.

Now in case you are wondering.

Thrasher, who between stints as a House and Senate member worked at a prominent lobbying firm in town, is aware of the commission decision. As is FSU'S general counsel. As is FSU Board of Trustees chairman Allan Bense.

It's just something that so far has not received a lot of public discussion so far.

When asked about it last week, Thrasher insisted it would not be an issue, especially since he is not the main lobbyist for the university.

"I don't think it's a real problem for us given the staff we have, given the few times presidents actually go over to the Capitol,'' Thrasher said. "They are going to know what we want. Trust me."

But what's also interesting is that it was Thrasher himself who wanted to go even further than what is in existing law. Two years ago it was Thrasher who sponsored a bill (SB 1560) that would have barred him from even seeking the presidency in the first place. The ethics bill stated that legislators could not work for state universities or colleges while in the Legislature or go to work for them for up to two years following their departure. The bill wound up dying in a Senate committee.

Thrasher is a "non traditional" candidate. Even the search consultant assisting FSU acknowledged that Thrasher would not be considered for a top post like this outside of the state of Florida. It's Thrasher's connections and clout in Tallahassee that make him a candidate worth considering, the consultant said.

The question, however, is whether the presidential search committee and FSU's board has a full discussion on what the 70-year-old Thrasher can achieve during the first two years that the lobbying ban is in effect.