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." 

The money, gifts and trips edition

IIt's a special summertime money, gifts and trips edition of inside the Tallahassee bubble....

BOUND FOR FRANCE...As it happens every year when the humidity bears down oppressively on the Florida capital, many people in the state's political hierarchy are nowhere near North Florida.

Legislators of course have long gone back home. But the state Supreme Court is also on summer break, the Florida Cabinet is on hiatus until mid-August and Gov. Rick Scott's time in Tallahassee is likewise kept at a minimum (of course unless a serious storm threatens the state.)

One staple for legislators in the past has been visits to various conferences, including ones held by the National Conference of State Legislators or the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Many years these conferences are held in cooler and more pleasant environments than Florida. This year, NCSL is holding its annual legislative summit in Boston on Aug. 6 through Aug 9, while ALEC held its annual meeting last month in Denver.

Attendance to these events was usually higher back when legislative leaders routinely approved travel expenses for members. The tradition used to be that members would have one trip a year paid out of the House and Senate budgets.

That's not how it works anymore.

House Speaker Richard Corcoran allows members to pay for the trips out of their own district accounts, as opposed to having his office cover the expenses. (State law allows legislators to transfer unused campaign money into these accounts.)

"The speaker no longer approves travel for members but he is holding the members accountable if they are questioned on their expenses,'' said Fred Piccolo, a spokesman for Corcoran. "In other words, they have to be prepared to defend their travel."

Over in the Senate, however, there are a handful of members who have been approved for trips this year, said Katie Betta, a spokeswoman for Senate President Joe Negron.

When asked about it recently, Betta said that Sens. Audrey Gibson and Oscar Braynon had been approved to attend the NCSL summit in Boston. Betta also said that John Phelps, the Senate Committee on Rules staff director and former long-time House clerk, had also been permitted to go because of his "international reputation as a legislative historian."

Betta also said that Sen. Anitere Flores (pictured above) had been chosen to represent the Florida Senate in the NCSL Executive Leadership Development program being held in Normandy, France from Sept. 25 to Oct. 1.

BONDI'S TRAVELS...Speaking of trips, disclosure forms show that Attorney General Pam Bondi continues to take trips to Washington D.C. and elsewhere that are paid by various groups she's involved with.

Bondi had nearly $28,000 worth of travel provided to her in 2016, which included a "weeklong diplomacy mission to Israel" in late May-early June 2016 that cost $5,000 and was paid by the America-Israel Friendship League.

Bondi said shortly after the trip she traveled with seven other attorneys general and that "it allowed the members of the delegation to meet face-to-face with cybersecurity experts, national legal leaders and top government officials to share strategies to bolster public safety and security."

Bondi, who was once was the chairman and now sits on the executive committee of the Republican Attorneys General Association,  had several trips paid by the RAGA and the Rule of Law Defense Fund, which bills itself as "the public policy organization for issues relevant to the nation’s Republican attorneys general and promotes the rule of law, federalism, and freedom in a civil society."

The association, for example, picked up the cost of Bondi's travel to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland where she gave a speech that included her saying about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton "Lock her up, I love that."

Bondi also reported that it was RAGA that picked up costs related to her attending the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January.

The group _ which was called a "money machine" by The New York Times _ has seen its activities come under scrutiny, because its meetings are held at resorts where large donors have access to attorneys general who can play a role in deciding whether to investigate corporations or get involved in policy fights.

The latest meeting for RAGA was held in Lake Tahoe late last month and Bondi was in attendance. She has not yet turned in her gift forms for that time period.

AN OLD TUXEDO, WINE AND CIGARS...While legislators and other top state officials are not allowed to take gifts directly from lobbyists or the principals who hire lobbyists, state officials can accept gifts from others that are worth more than $100 if they report them.

A look through some forms shows that only Bondi and Corcoran are the only top officials to regularly file them.

Scott, former Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam have maintained that they have received zero gifts worth $100 or more in recent years.

One top public official, however, who has disclosed gifts on a routine basis is Corcoran.

A review of his forms for this year shows that Corcoran accepted a "old tuxedo" from fellow representative and House budget chairman Carlos Trujillo at the time of the presidential inauguration. Sen. Keith Perry gave Corcoran a box of cigars worth $100 in late January.

But Negron - whose relationship with Corcoran seemed strained at times during the legislative session and subsequent special session - gave Corcoran a "humidor, crystal, wine, lighter and cutter" worth approximately $1,000 during the first week of the 2017 session.

Fellow House Rep. Ralph Massullo gave Corcoran $400 worth of wine in early May, while Rep. Travis Cummings gave the Republican speaker about $100 worth of wine two weeks later.

A request for gift forms in fact shows Corcoran has been filing them as far back as 2011 - when he got $200 of cigars from then (and now lobbyist) Rep. Chris Dorworth. Future House Speaker Rep. Jose Oliva _ and who along with his family created a successful cigar business _  has also given him cigars on several occasions.

Then-Sen. Frank Artiles (who resigned this spring after using racial slurs during a tirade at a Tallahassee bar) gave Corcoran a "gun and display" worth $1,000 last November. Corcoran has gotten grilling tools, artwork and even DVD copies of speeches made by famed economist Milton Friedman.

But maybe the most interesting gift Corcoran reported? A sword he got in Sept. 2015 from Mat Bahl, an attorney and former chief of staff for House Speaker Dean Cannon who became Corcoran's chief of staff last year.

BIG PRICE-TAG FOR SENATE GOP FUNDRAISER...Remember the fundraiser for the Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee held at the famed Torrey Pines golf course in June? It got some publicity because there was concern that this year's budget-related special session would collide with it.

Well it appears the fundraiser - which attracted the attendance of many well-known Senate Republicans - wasn't cheap, according to campaign finance reports. The GOP committee _ which gets its money from groups seeking to pass or defeat legislation in the Legislature _ spent more than $77,000 on lodging, meals and golf fees for the two-day event.

There's no requirement that an organization breakout how much money is received at a single fundraiser. The committee reported that it raised $720,000 during the quarter that ended on June 30.

 

The elephant in the room for Florida Republicans

As the Republican National Convention kicks off this coming week the official word is that everything is a-o.k. with Florida Republicans.

Despite that fact that many of the state's 99 Florida delegates supported other candidates ahead of the primaries none of them have been wishing out loud that someone else besides Donald Trump was the presumptive GOP nominee. No talk of blocking delegates from attending or lawsuits.

"The Florida delegation is totally united,'' said Republican Party of Florida Chairman Blaise Ingoglia on CNN on Saturday.

Yet while the delegation will certainly follow the rules and give all 99 Florida votes to Trump a lot of questions remain about the state of the party and the fact that top Republicans in the state are divided into factions.

There's a whole long list of things to consider (including the fact that former Gov. Jeb Bush and his staunchest supporters aren't on board with Trump) but let's just start with the strange situation with the Republican primary for U.S. Senate after incumbent U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio went back on his oft-repeated promise to not to run for election.

Most of the other GOP candidates jumped out once Rubio changed his mind. But Manatee County homebuilder and political newcomer Carlos Beruff didn't. And that was just fine with GOP governor Rick Scott, who came close to endorsing Beruff over Rubio (seen here campaigning for Scott's re-election.) (Also worth noting: Rubio has not been endorsed by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has a speaking slot at the convention.)

Yet at the same time - Scott's own lieutenant governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera is now actively campaigning for his good friend Rubio and against Beruff.

Beruff this past week went on Florida airwaves with an ad that smacked Rubio, saying he wasn't backing Trump and suggested it had to do with Rubio' s stance on immigration. Lopez-Cantera was the first to fire back by citing Beruff's decision to back Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate race (even after Crist had switched from being a Republican to being an independent.) 

"He’s a Crist insider who values political opportunity over Florida’s conservative principles,'' Lopez-Cantera said in a statement distributed by the Rubio campaign.

Then a Super PAC supporting Rubio said it was going up with its own ad to go after Beruff.

Adding to this mix was the suggestion - although knocked down by the Beruff campaign - that maybe, just maybe Beruff was staying in the race against Rubio not to win - but to build his name recognition in a possible bid for governor in 2018.

Scott, talking to one of his former top aides, even chimed in and said that "my experience with Carlos is, whatever he puts his mind to, he’s going to be successful. Whether that’s trying to make sure his customers get what they want, or anything else, Carlos will be successful.”

For those not completely immersed in inside Capitol Circle talk - that's a shot at the presumed campaign of Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. The icy relationship between Putnam and Scott goes back years. You can bet there are people whispering to Putnam that he needs to be prepared so that he isn't "McCollumed" - a reference to the fact that then Attorney General Bill McCullom was considered a shoo-in for the GOP nomination for governor in 2010 until Scott jumped in at the last minute and self-funded his campaign.

Then there's the whole money thing for all Republicans.

Despite having no announced plans beyond 2018, Scott keeps raising money for his Let's Get to Work political committee and not the Republican Party of Florida as part of the continued fallout after Ingoglia won the chairmanship back in early 2015 over Scott's own handpicked candidate.

Scott has raised more than $1.8 million so far this year for his committee of which he transferred $95,000 back in January to the party. Yes there's a persistent rumor that Scott may run for U.S. Senate, but it's important to point out under campaign finance laws that Scott can't directly use this money - which is from corporate donations - for a federal race.

Now it's true that the Republican National Committee has put in money into the state that has been used to hire ground staff, but what message does it send to donors and others that the state's leading Republican isn't helping out his own party that much?

Lots of political insiders in Tallahassee keep grumbling about the situation and grumbling whether or not Scott's recalcitrance is diverting resources that could at least pay for certain types of party expenses. And remember the Beruff situation? That could increase pressure on Putnam to raise more money for his political committee. (Putnam did give the state party a $25,000 check in June.)

Of course none of this is totally surprising given the awkward relationship Scott has had since he knocked off McCollum even though the veteran politician had support from many establishment Republicans. In the background are GOP consultants with competing agendas and competing candidates ahead of the 2018 elections.

Maybe it's not a big problem.

After all Florida's Democrats continue to have their own history of problems come election time and the rise-and-fall of presidential campaigns has usually been more dependent on the the actual campaigns and not the state party. (There's still bad blood between state operatives and the campaign of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney as state people contended Romney's folks ignored their advice ahead of a narrow loss to President Barack Obama.)

But after close to 20 years of GOP domination it's still out of character to see so many fault lines and shifting loyalties.

Add it all up and it could matter in a swing state where only a few thousand  - or few hundred ballots - can make a difference in the leader of the free world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Bondi's fantasy dilemma

It's only been a few short months since the start of football season - which is what helped bring the ever-expanding world of daily fantasy sports into the spotlight.

Now with the Super Bowl right around the corner - and a new legislative session about to commence - one key question remains:

What, if anything, does Attorney General Pam Bondi plan to do about the murky legality surrounding fantasy sports in Florida.

Let's scroll back.

It was back during the summer that the big players in daily fantasy - FanDuel and DraftKings _ started hiring lobbyists in Tallahassee as the same time they were starting a huge national ad campaign. Their moves came as a legal theory began to emerge that fantasy sports - the idea of selecting players in various sports and winning money based on their performance - was not allowed under Florida law.

This theory - which has been explored by South Florida attorney Daniel Wallach and further expanded in a paper penned by Wallach and Tallahassee attorney/lobbyist Marc Dunbar - says a key impediment is a 1991 opinion authored by then-Attorney General Bob Butterworth that concluded spending $100 on a season-long fantasy football team was illegal gambling.

It was shortly afterwards - some of it sparked by national reports of a DFS employee participating in a contest on a rival's website - that a backlash began to mount for the two big companies in other parts of the country. Nevada ruled that fantasy websites needed to shut down or be licensed, while the attorney general in New York said they were illegal gambling and is trying to shutter them.

Move to Florida and there are apparent signs of some prosecutors getting involved, namely that U.S. Attorney Lee Bentley in Tampa has reportedly launched his own investigation according to Wallach and others. There are also civil lawsuits being filed. And there was a key development in that arena when Law360 reported earlier this week that State Attorney Bernie McCabe has taken an interest in the issue.

McCabe, whose jurisdiction includes Pasco and Pinellas counties, filed a memo supporting an effort to remand the case against FanDuel and DraftKings back into state court because he asserted that the state was in fact the "real party of interest" in this case.

But it's hard to pin Bondi or her office down on how the state's top legal officer (and whose office houses the statewide prosecutor) views the evolving situation even as other law-enforcement officials take action.

Bondi has said she still supports the 1991 Butterworth opinion and has made no moves to rescind it or repeal it. But beyond that Bondi and her office continue to defer questions.

"Our office engaged in extensive discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and we both agreed the matter should be handled federally,'' said Bondi spokesman Whitney Ray late last year "Also, our office is in regular contact with U.S. Attorney Lee Bentley, and we have full confidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office will handle the matter appropriately."

Additionally, so far Bondi has remained fairly quiet about whether she supports efforts by the fantasy effort to put in laws that would regulate the industry. Sen. Joe Negron and Rep. Matt Gaetz have sponsored bills to do so for the upcoming session that kicks off next Tuesday and FanDuel is increasing its workforce in anticipation of the new law being put in place reported the Orlando Sentinel.

(It's worth pointing out that even though the Negron and Gaetz bills directly affect his agency, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam has also not been exactly clear whether he's a fan or not of either version.)

The big giants in the fantasy sports industry are being primarily represented in Florida by mega-lobbyist Brian Ballard and his firm. Ballard is of course a big-time fundraiser who is now supporting Marco Rubio for president and also lobbies on behalf of Donald Trump.

But late last August one of the other lobbyists who signed up to represent the fantasy companies was well-known GOP consultant Marc Reichelderfer. He is friends with Bondi and has done campaign work on her behalf.

When asked about it directly last fall, Bondi said she was unaware that Reichelderfer had begun representing the fantasy sports industry.

Some of Bondi's interactions with lawyers, lobbyists and how her office has handled such cases has drawn scrutiny, most notably in articles that appeared in the New York Times. So it can be argued that it's important for voters and citizens to know what her office is - or isn't doing on this.

Bondi during her five-year stint in office been very selective about what issues she will - or won't - engage in.

She once took a stance against casino gambling, but yet other times she has refused to take a position on bills even if they directly impact her agency operations. Bondi is also as of now remaining fairly quiet about what she thinks about the $3 billion compact negotiated between Gov. Rick Scott and the tribe (and which could allow a new casino in South Florida.)

With another session dawning, it will be interesting to watch whether or not the state's top legal officer weighs in on the various legal issues that surrounding gambling or gaming. Or if she will remain in a neutral (and silent) corner.

(This post has been updated to note that FanDuel is expanding its workforce in Florida.)

For once Rick Scott follows the Charlie Crist playbook

One of the many things that Republicans, including those in Florida, have complained about President Barack Obama is his use of executive power, most recently of course seen in his executive order dealing with immigration.

Florida is one of the more than two dozen states that late last year joined the lawsuit filed by Texas challenging the president's actions.

At the time Attorney General Pam Bondi contended that her decision to join the other states was not about immigration but to undo what she termed "unwarranted presidential overreach."

"This lawsuit is about President Obama-yet again-overstepping the power granted to him by our United States Constitution," Bondi said.

She then added: "The powers granted to the President are expressly laid out in the United States Constitution, yet President Obama has decided to ignore those parameters."

In Tallahassee this week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott exerted his own kind of executive authority, and one that could theoretically also be challenged as "overreach."

Scott issued an executive order on Tuesday that authorized Education Commissioner Pam Stewart to suspend an 11th grade standardized test that was about to be given to high school juniors this spring.

Scott took the action in response to a testing investigation undertaken by Stewart at his urging last year while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart in her summary of that investigation suggested getting rid of the test even though it was just approved last year and was included in a bill (HB 7031) that repealed mention of Common Core in state law.

The wording of Scott's order was interesting.

First off, Scott asserts that his authority to give Stewart the power to suspend the test is vested in the state constitution. The language he cites is from the first part of Article IV, which states that the governor "has supreme executive power."

Nowhere does Scott contend that there is an emergency that requires him to act now regarding the test.

But the governor kind of acknowledges that he is telling Stewart not to follow the law, saying he is taking action now because the "Legislature will have opportunity to consider repeal of the statutory requirement" that now mandates the test. (It's not clear whether or not lawmakers will in fact do that.)

Florida's governor does not enjoy the same scope of executive power as the president although the governor is arguably more powerful now than two decades ago. Changes in the constitution and state law - especially during the Jeb Bush years - has strengthened the governor's hand.

But usually the only time the governor can suspend or waive the law is when there is an emergency such as a hurricane. Most of the time the governor's executive orders deal with matters as appointing a prosecutor from another judicial circuit to handle a case because another prosecutor has a conflict.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, however, building on Bush's use of executive orders issued executive orders that privately some Republicans grumbled were not legal, most notably his decision to extend early voting hours during the 2008 election (and which Crist said was justified by an emergency).

One top Republican at the time said it would have created a public relations disaster to sue Crist over the order, not to mention it wasn't clear if a court would act quickly enough to block the order from taking effect.

This wasn't the only time, however, Crist would use an executive order in a legally questionable way.

In his final months in office he issued an executive order that extended jobless benefits approved by Congress even though the Legislature had not authorized it. Crist took the action even though past extensions had been passed by state legislators and it was assumed that the benefits would lapse absent legislative action.

Just as it had happened with the voting executive order, no one challenged Crist's authority that time either.

And that's probably what will happen with Scott as well. It's hard to imagine anyone who would go to court to force 11th graders to take a test.

But this could signal a decision by Scott to be more assertive in his use of executive authority despite signs that he may have a tough time getting fellow Republicans in the Legislature to follow his lead during a second term.

And perhaps when Scott greets Obama on the tarmac in Miami today they could regale each other about the use of executive orders.

Pam Bondi, the reporter and the money

Some more inside the Tallahassee bubble news...

Remember the lawsuit that disgraced former House Speaker Ray Sansom filed against the state to recover more than $800,000 in legal fees?

Sansom, if you recall, was charged with manipulating the state budget process in order to obtain $6 million in state money to pay for a hangar at the Destin airport that was really intended to be used by a businessman and major Republican donor.

His trial in 2011 ended when State Attorney Willie Meggs dropped the charges after a judge refused to let a key witness testify.

Sansom filed a civil lawsuit asking for payment of his legal fees. He asserts that his legal fees should be paid by taxpayers because it was connected to his legal duties.

The state, however, has fought this request, saying that despite the charges being dropped that Sansom's action were still "tainted" because he was seeking to do something on behalf of private interests not the public.

Well the trial is coming up soon and the office of Attorney General Pam Bondi has subpoenaed Tampa Tribune reporter James Rosica to testify in the case.

Rosica covered the trial for The Associated Press at the time.

Why is Bondi's office seeking to compel a reporter to appear at the trial? That's not really clear.

A spokesman for the attorney general refused to comment citing the pending litigation.

The subpoena given to Rosica last Friday does instruct him to bring a copy of the March 25, 2011 article he did on the criminal case. That story does note that both Sansom and businessman Jay Odom had agreed to pay restitution to Northwest Florida State College for costs related to the hangar.

During a court hearing in 2013 it was pointed out that Odom wound up paying Sansom's share of the restitution. Sansom's lawyer argued that Sansom never really consented to the payment and that it should not have been viewed as an admission of guilt.

Speaking of the Sansom civil trial....

One interesting tidbit from the legal battle. According to one court filing, Sansom in a deposition has defended his actions as House budget chairman by comparing himself to....John Thrasher.

Sansom noted that while he was speaker Thrasher helped obtain funding for a Florida State University medical school.

For their part attorneys for Bondi's office don't agree with the comparison.

"The difference in the two situations is stark,'' states the filing from last fall. "Mr. Thrasher put an appropriation in for a medical school building, and a medical school building was built. Mr. Sansom placed into the appropriations bill an appropriation for the 'Okaloose Jt Use Emergency Response Workforce Center" for building a hanger at the Destin airport for his campaign contributor, Jay Odom. A finding that this act was within the public interest essentially condones political corruption."

Odom by the way also appears to be a key person for the upcoming trial.

He has been fighting attempts to get him to answer questions related to the entire Sansom incident and the payment he made to the college. The state has also wanted to delve into his friendship with Sansom as well as ask him questions about his businesses.

Filings show that Odom, who was sentenced in 2013 to six months in jail and ordered to pay fines in connection with money he donated to the presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee, has been citing his Fifth Amendment privilege in order to rebuff these questions from the state. His attorneys say the threat of continued prosecution _ including potential racketeering charges_remain real.

From one of the court filings:

"The scope of the federal investigation is broad.

The federal authorities have gone to extreme efforts to seize virtually all of Mr. Odom's business and personal records and interview, or compel testimony, from a vast number of his friends, family members, employees and associates. Search warrants have been served on him, his businesses and his properties. With those search warrants, the federal authorities seized over 18 boxes (and other containers) of documents, copied the hard drives of eleven computers, and seized financial records relating to virtually every receipt and expenditure by Mr. Odom, or his companies."

The court filing adds that federal investigators have not only focused on the appropriation but the relationship between Odom and Sansom as well as "campaign contributions made by Mr. Odom's businesses to political candidates and causes."

In November, Judge Angela Dempsey ruled that Odom does have a right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, but she did say he needed to order two questions related to his decision to pay the restitution on behalf of Sansom.

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.

 

 

Scott's LG dilemma

The state of Florida has been without a lieutenant governor since mid-March.

Don't look for that to change anytime too soon.

And that plain fact raises interesting questions about the state constitution and Scott's re-election campaign.

As most people know Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll abruptly resigned in March after she was questioned by law-enforcement agents about the work she had done for Allied Veterans of the World. Carroll was questioned right before authorities arrested nearly 60 people for being part of an illegal gambling ring.

Carroll would later tell media outlets that she was forced to resign almost immediately after she was questioned even though she insists she has done nothing wrong. So far she has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The decision to force Carroll out gave the Scott administration - and more importantly the Scott re-election campaign - an opportunity to do a bit of a reboot.

Carroll it could be argued had already become a bit of a liability due to a history of inopportune remarks (such as the lesbians don't look like me comment) - although there were those who also insisted she is very well-liked among the Republican conservative base.

Since then there has been a steady stream of speculation about who Scott would pick for LG ranging from state representatives such as Dana Young (plausible) and Anitere Flores (understandable but unlikely) to former U.S. Rep. Allen West (absolutely not).

Here's what it is clear: Scott, the former CEO used to running the show by himself, appears to be in no hurry.

First Scott said that he would wait until after session was over. He then shuttered the lieutenant governor's office and required the handful of employees in the office to find work elsewhere.

Now the governor is deciding what to veto from a proposed $74.5 million budget. He is also going on a trade mission next week to Chile.It is unlikely Scott will name a LG before he leaves the country - meaning that Attorney General Pam Bondi will become governor if something should happen to him.

And that's where the constitutional dilemma comes in.

The state constitution states that there "shall be a lieutenant governor."

It's a clause that has been in the state constitution since 1968. Between 1885 and that time the person next-in-line to become governor was the Senate President. 

Charley Johns, whose name became synonymous with the "Johns Committee" or the legislative panel that investigated communists and gays in the state university system, was Senate President at the time that Gov. Dan McCarty died in office in September 1953. Johns served as governor until Jan. 1955. He was thwarted in his bid to serve out the remainder of McCarty's term when LeRoy Collins defeated him in the 1954 Democratic primary.

The constitution, however, is silent on what happens if there is a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor. That's left to state law. FS. 14.055 merely states that "upon vacancy the governor shall appoint a successor who shall serve for the remainder of the term..."

The last time a lieutenant governor stepped down it was Frank Brogan leaving shortly after he and Jeb Bush were re-elected in 2002. Brogan sought the presidency of Florida Atlantic University just days after the swearing-in. By the start of March Toni Jennings had been sworn in as a successor.

But because there's no exact time line it seems the governor will likely name a LG when the time is right and can help him as he moves toward re-election. (Just as an aside - those close to "Scott World" say they expect the governor to pick an LG who will be on the 2014 ballot with him. Scott could have, if he wanted, picked someone to serve as a caretaker for the next 18 months and then name someone new to run with him for a new term.)

That means that Scott - unless someone sues him and demands he pick a lieutenant governor sooner - can glide towards a pick sometime over the next few weeks or even months.

He's got a busy schedule for this month and June (including a trade mission trip to Paris for its airshow.) Scott in other words will sign bills, hold bill signing ceremonies, and then he can pick a LG to create some potential positive buzz.

He's got room to do it since still now there are no formidable Democratic opponents taking any of the limelight away from him.

A complicating factor, of course, with all of this is those most interested in winning the job of LG are not the kind of people who already have a large amount of attention themselves. Jennings was a great grab for Bush because she had served back-to-back terms as Senate president and was no longer in office. Jennings gave Bush a go-to person to help lobby the Legislature, but she was able to do the job without having to worry about campaigning and fund-raising. Bush wanted Jennings to run for governor, but she declined and left the door open for Charlie Crist to eventually win the job.

It makes sense to look at legislators since they know about campaigning, but for many of them becoming lieutenant governor would put them in a more prominent position.

But since Scott must pick someone who will help his campaign it makes sense to look at people outside the Tallahassee bubble as well.

Which is why it is also understandable why Scott doesn't plan to move too fast.

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.