The Trade Show, Vol. 1
The Trade Show, Vol. 1
'Ninety percent of what goes on up here is a trade show'
This is Seeking Rents, a newsletter devoted to producing original journalism — and lifting up the journalism of others — that examines the many ways that businesses influence public policy across Florida, written by Jason Garcia.
Years ago, the first time I went to Tallahassee to cover the Florida Legislature, a longtime Capitol reporter who became a professional mentor and close friend said to me, “Ninety percent of what goes on up here is a trade show.”
That line has always stuck with me. Culture wars and palace intrigue get most of the attention when the Legislature is in session. But most of the actual lawmaking is devoted to issues raised by businesses.
That’s the origin story of “The Trade Show,” which will be a weekly collection of stories from around the state about that other 90 percent of session, plus the occasional observation of my own.
The seedy side of legislative sausage-making
Tax certificates – a form of investment when counties sell off the right to collect unpaid property taxes – are a billion-dollar business in Florida. And now legislation is moving that would give an edge in this market to a handful of big institutional investors.
Skyler Swisher and David Lyons of the Orlando Sentinel have the story – and a lot of gory details about how things get done in Tallahassee:
A bill moving through the Florida Legislature would give financial heavyweights an edge in online government auctions at the expense of smaller investors.
Tax collectors say the changes would reinstate a cartel for a little-known $1 billion market in Florida, letting a handful of large investors dominate the market and drive up costs for homeowners who fall behind on their taxes.
A longtime player in the market who stands to benefit is pushing the legislation. To boost its chances, his company hired a former state representative-turned-lobbyist, who appears to have channeled $40,000 in political contributions from the company to committees controlled by the Senate president and House speaker.
Read: Industry-pushed bill helps big firms win tax auctions, potentially squeezes homeowners
‘This may lower operating costs for private employers’
Every year now, the Florida Legislature strips more power from cities and counties, urged on by lobbyists for businesses upset with local regulations that eat into profit margins. One of the targets this session: Living wage ordinances, like one in Miami-Dade County that requires companies who get county contracts of more than $100,000 to pay their workers a living wage.
From James Call of USA Today Network – Florida (which includes the Palm Beach Post, Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville, Sarasota Herald-Tribune and others):
The state's top business lobbying associations are putting their combined political might behind a bill that could cut the pay of thousands of Florida workers.
The Florida Chamber, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association and the Florida Retail Federation are urging House and Senate committees to approve a proposed ban on local wage mandates that are higher than the state minimum of $10 an hour.
Cities, counties and workers argue local governments should be free to include so-called "living wage" and benefits mandates in local contracts.
Read: Florida lawmakers consider banning cities, counties from setting local minimum wages
This is one of those bills where the staff analysis really says it all:
No more half measures
Back in November, about two months before the session began, a sort-of-amusing-but-actually-chilling story broke: Someone in the Legislature had drafted a bill to abolish the city of Key West.
“I’m not surprised there are discussions on how to rein in some of these rogue municipalities,” state Rep. Spencer Roach, a Republican from North Fort Myers, told FLKeysNews.com/Miami Herald at the time.
No bill was ever formally filed, and the move seemed to be widely viewed as a stunt. But was it? Maybe this is still a few years away, but it sure feels inevitable that the Florida Legislature will eventually decide to just wipe out a municipal government somewhere – probably in a place like Key West, Miami Beach or Gainesville.
They’re already moving beyond preemptions. From the Miami Herald’s Mary Ellen Klas:
The Florida Senate has an answer for local governments that want to regulate businesses: Go ahead, but it’s going to cost you.
A bill that will allow businesses to sue for damages if a local ordinance or voter-approved referendum costs their business 15% or more of their profits passed on a 22-14 mostly party-line vote Thursday.
If it had been in effect in 2020, Key West residents who voted to ban cruise ships with more than 1,300 passengers from docking at the city ports would have been subject to paying the cruise lines for lost business during the months the ban was in force.
Read: Senate passes bill ordering local governments to pay up if new rules hurt businesses
Turn off the light
Just about anyone interested in Florida politics is probably following the slowly unspooling “ghost candidate” scandal, which has turned a bright light on the ways dark money has been used to influence elections and public policy around the state.
As part of their investigation into the ghost candidate campaigns, prosecutors in Miami have obtained bank records for at least two nonprofit organizations involved in the money chain.
Lo and behold, bills have been filed in the Legislature that could stop the agency from releasing those records to the public. From Ana Ceballos and Samantha J. Gross of the Miami Herald:
Florida Republicans are pushing legislation that would enact broad new layers of secrecy around nonprofit organizations’ corporate and individual donors, a move that would allow some political groups to shield sources of funding from local and state government scrutiny.
There are two versions of the so-called “Personal Privacy Protection Act” in the Florida Legislature, and records and interviews show the bill language was provided by a lobbyist who says he was working on behalf of two nonprofit organizations whose tax-exempt status allows them to engage in a restricted level of political activity and does not require them to disclose their donors.
Such groups, which often serve as vehicles for dark money spending because their sources are hidden, have come under increased scrutiny in the last year as a result of a Miami-Dade County “ghost” candidate investigation marked by dark money spending.
The proposed legislation in the House would further limit public knowledge of their funding sources by prohibiting government entities from requiring corporations, associations, and nonprofit organizations to provide information about their direct or indirect support to any entity. The public entities would also be barred from publicly releasing the information if they have it.
And an important takeaway:
“This bill, if it were on the books today, would have precluded the media and the public from learning many of the details about the ghost candidate scheme,” said Michael Barfield, the director of public access at the Florida Center for Government Accountability.
There is *a lot* more in this story. It’s really, really well done. Read the whole thing.
Read: How much darker can political money get? New GOP bill tries to further shield donors
Rewind: ‘That’s the whole problem with this system’
The Senate sponsor of that last bill is Sen. Joe Gruters, a Republican from Sarasota County who also chairs the Republican Party of Florida – and a guy who’s been on the receiving end of anonymous election spending.
Just over five years ago, a newly formed group with the subtle name “Stop Benefits to Illegals NOW!” chaired by a woman who had never led a political committee before and based out of a strip mall storefront – sound familiar? – sent mailers attacking Gruters as anti-gun and promoting his opponent in the Republican primary for House District 73. Gruters eked through by 385 votes out of 23,000 cast.
This was Gruters immediately after that experience (via Florida Trend):
Gruters, for one, says he won’t forget. The newly elected legislator says he plans to make reforming the state’s election laws one of his chief goals in office in hopes of restoring transparency to campaigns.
Among the ideas on the table: Put direct contributions to candidates on an even footing with the committees by eliminating limits on direct contributions; mandate immediate, real-time disclosure of any donations; prohibit transfers between committees; and require more detailed information about both donors and expenditures.
“Every time I’ve tried to trace where the money could potentially have come from, the fingers are pointing at everybody else. Nobody wants to take responsibility,” Gruters says. “And that’s the whole problem with the system.”
Read: Untraceable: Who sends all those political mailers?
Helping...or exploiting?
There isn’t a bigger crisis in Florida right now than the lack of actually affordable apartments and homes across a state whose economy leans so heavily on low-wage, thin-benefit service-sector jobs.
Into this “market” have stepped some startup companies that pair up with apartment complexes to offer tenants the option of paying a monthly-but-nonrefundable fee instead of an upfront-but-refundable security deposit.
The companies and their lobbyists are framing this an optional product that can help get people into apartments they couldn’t otherwise afford. But others say it’s just a new way to monetize financial desperation that ultimately keeps people trapped in poverty (think: payday loans and lottery tickets).
Back to the Orlando Sentinel’s Skyler Swisher:
As rents skyrocket, startup companies are touting what they consider to be a helpful solution to hefty security deposits pricing Floridians out of apartments.
Instead of forking over an upfront security deposit, tenants can agree to pay a monthly fee — typically about $25
But there’s a catch: The money isn’t refundable at the end of the lease like a traditional security deposit, and renters are still on the hook for damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.
State lawmakers are considering legislation that would create regulations for such agreements that offer security deposit insurance instead of a traditional lump-sum deposit.
How dare you ask me about my bill
Listen, I don’t know anything about this bill. But this is about as suspicious as bill sponsors could possibly act (via Shannon Behnken of WFLA News Channel 8 in Tampa):
Republican State Senator Tom Wright and Republican State Representative David Smith filed the identical bills, SB 1346 and HB 1517. Neither lawmaker has returned repeated calls for comment about why. Now, State Representative Andrew Learned (D-Hillsborough) signed on as a co-sponsor of the House bill.
Learned has also not returned a request from Better Call Behnken to explain why he supports this bill.
...
Smith, when approached outside of a committee hearing, said he did not have time to speak and to call his office and set up an appointment.
“It’s unprofessional to come stick a camera in my face and ask me to explain a bill,” he said. “Please make an appointment with my office. I’d be happy to talk to you.”
Behnken followed up with another phone call, but Smith has still not returned the message.
Read (better yet, watch): Lawmakers quiet on proposal to take away car dealer requirement to transfer title within 30 days
Amendment watch
And lastly for today: This isn’t a Tallahassee story right now but it has been before. It set off a wild, late-session scramble in 2018 on the floor of the Florida House that had several Seminole County lawmakers voting for and then against a provision that was the source of intense local controversy.
Keep an eye out for amendments is all I’m saying.
From the Orlando Sentinel’s Martin E. Comas:
In a setback to developer Chris Dorworth’s plans to build his River Cross mega-development, a circuit court judge ruled Monday that Seminole’s charter amendment establishing the county’s protected rural area is constitutional.
Seminole commissioners have the authority to reject a developer’s request to carve out property from the county’s voter-approved rural boundary for development beyond the current density of one home per five acres, according to Circuit Judge Randell Rowe’s ruling.
Read: Circuit judge rejects Dorworth’s River Cross lawsuit against Seminole County
