The honor of Republican Leadership

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hey, need a law passed by a state legislature? Come on down to FL. All you gotta do is pay up. You can do it legally now. This is what it means to the GOP to 'take back our government'. By 'our government', naturally they mean 'their government', not yours. See, they own it. And hence, they can sell it. Isn't America great?

Let's say it again: Florida's legislators are for sale

By Howard Troxler, Times Columnist

In Print: Tuesday, March 29, 2011

There is no state, no nation, no planet, and no universe where it should be legal to pay off a Legislature directly. There is no government in which a sworn lawmaker should be able to take unlimited payoffs from those seeking favorable treatment. And yet this is now precisely the law of Florida.

In Sunday's column I called the Florida Legislature "the ####### of Babylon" for passing a law last week that legalizes its own bribery. But the topic cries out not to be forgotten. This is a turning point in Florida's history.

It is now legal in Florida for the leaders of our House and Senate, of both the Republican and Democratic parties, to operate what are laughably called "leadership funds." If you are an interest group in Florida, a corporation, a lobbyist seeking favor, you go to these "leadership" funds run by lawmakers …

And you pay them.

They will launder the money into local elections around the state, to keep electing more obedient followers. This is so astonishing a corruption that it defies belief. The bill in question is House Bill 1207, passed in the 2010 legislative session.

Then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed it. Last Thursday the Legislature overrode the veto.

The House vote was 81-39. The Senate vote was 30-9.

The twisted logic used in the Capitol, and what your legislator will try to tell you, is that it's better for the Legislature to be paid off directly. See, they will write it down in a separate little report. So this is all about "informing the public" and "transparency."

If they try to give you this line, just ask this question:

"So, is it legal to make unlimited payoffs to 'leadership funds' that are operated directly by the leaders of the Legislature, or not?"

Yes.

People ask: What can I do?

You can call or e-mail. You can go to the House's website (www.myfloridahouse.com) or the Senate's (www.flsenate.gov) and find contact information for your legislator. (I beg you to be firm but civil, especially to the hard-working staff — the world is rude enough already, isn't it?)

But they are counting on you not to do anything at all.

Instead, here is what they are counting on you to do:

Re-elect them.

After all, those who voted for this last year overwhelmingly got re-elected in November. Some who voted against it were defeated by newcomers who just voted for it!

Area senators voting yes:

Charles Dean, R-Inverness; Dennis Jones, R-Treasure Island; Jack Latvala, R-St. Petersburg; Jim Norman, R-Tampa; Ronda Storms, R-Brandon.

Senators voting no:

Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey; Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland; Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa.

House members voting yes:

Larry Ahern, R-Seminole; Jim Boyd, R-Bradenton; Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg; Rachel Burgin, R-Riverview; Richard Corcoran, R-New Port Richey; Jim Frishe, R-St. Petersburg; Rich Glorioso, R-Plant City; James Grant, R-Tampa; Shawn Harrison, R-Tampa; Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater; John Legg, R-New Port Richey; Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland; Peter Nehr, R-Tarpon Springs; Rob Schenck, R-Spring Hill; Jimmie Smith, R-Inverness; Greg Steube, R-Bradenton; Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel; Dana Young, R-Tampa.

House members voting no:

Janet Cruz, D-Tampa; Richard Kriseman, D-St. Petersburg; Betty Reed, D-Tampa; Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg.

[Danno 1,228]

Next thing you know they will be allowing Unions to both

contribute to elections.

THe negotiate new contracts with their elected candidates for pay and benefit increases.

*Did I leave out the part where the State even collects Union dues for the Union?

Edited March 30, 2011 by Danno

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Next thing you know they will be allowing Unions to both contribute to elections.

THe negotiate new contracts with their elected candidates for pay and benefit increases.

*Did I leave out the part where the State even collects Union dues for the Union?

So I take it that you have no issue with this blatant legalization of corruption - these leasership funds were abandoned in this very state a couple of decades ago for good reasons - in a state of this union. Just as long as it's the tea partiers selling off the state government and cashing in on favors they do for the well funded then it's all good. You know, I had a different understanding of 'taking back our government'. Maybe folks should have read the fine print on those tea party signs, eh?

Let's take back our government so we can sell it to the highest bidder.

[Danno 1,228]

Well I don't speak for the Tea Party but: it's high time the Right do the things that bring victory , what ever that might be.

This Boy Scout like, obsession the right has of taking the high road has only hurt us.

Just consider the Situation with the Unions for example..... Have any Democrats ever questioned the huge, unfair.. and improper advantage that has granted them all these years?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well I don't speak for the Tea Party but: it's high time the Right do the things that bring victory , what ever that might be.

Even if this 'whatever' is open, blatant bribery? You have no issue with that? Why not simply outlaw every other party? Only allow right wing candidates on the ballots? That will ensure victory. Is that acceptable, too?

[Danno 1,228]

Even if this 'whatever' is open, blatant bribery? You have no issue with that? Why not simply outlaw every other party? Only allow right wing candidates on the ballots? That will ensure victory. Is that acceptable, too?

The Left has a history of that already with their "redistricting lines".

[Peikko 1,575]

Even if this 'whatever' is open, blatant bribery? You have no issue with that? Why not simply outlaw every other party? Only allow right wing candidates on the ballots? That will ensure victory. Is that acceptable, too?

Absolutely, in fact why bother with elections at all? Only certain types of people should ever be in power and as we already know who they are elections are unnecessary

The Left has a history of that already with their "redistricting lines".

Gerrymandering is confined to the left wing?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Left has a history of that already with their "redistricting lines".

The left? The right wouldn't do any such thing, would they? Wait, Texas 2003. See how redrawing a few lines made the state more red...

Look at FL. A majority Democrat state (42% of Floridians identify themselves as democrats vs 36% who identify themselves as Republican) now has Repblicans in all but one statewide office, has 2/3+ GOP majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. And we have some mighty funky districts. And yes, the latter does connect to the former. It's so bad here that voters have passed constitutional amendments to keep better checks on gerrymandering. Of course, Con Scott and his GOP majorities in the legislature are not very supportive of these amendments and are working feverishly to make them as hollow as possible. It's not like they should take seriously what two thirds of the electorate voted to support last November. They don't work for the electorate, they work for their corporates.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Dan J 277]

Next thing you know they will be allowing Unions to both

contribute to elections.

THe negotiate new contracts with their elected candidates for pay and benefit increases.

*Did I leave out the part where the State even collects Union dues for the Union?

So corruption is fine as long as Unions are not allowed to bribe elected officials?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Sorry, but this sound exactly like what happens with public employee unions. Both happen to be wrong. Why are you so upset Dog? Because the reps are now doing what the dems have been doing all along? If not then why don't I see you upset with the unions doing it in other states?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry, but this sound exactly like what happens with public employee unions.

Unions get to legally bribe legislators? Where?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Unions get to legally bribe legislators? Where?

You know how it works. The state passes laws that require manditory dues from public employees, the unions use the money to pay for elections to elect more pro union politicians and the politicians use their power to make sure the unions continue to take out manditory dues. Sounds like a racket to me. If you are fine with that but have a problem with these "leadership funds" then I would say you have a double standard going on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know how it works. The state passes laws that require manditory dues from public employees, the unions use the money to pay for elections to elect more pro union politicians and the politicians use their power to make sure the unions continue to take out manditory dues. Sounds like a racket to me. If you are fine with that but have a problem with these "leadership funds" then I would say you have a double standard going on.

No double standard at all. Read up on what the leadership funds are and perhaps a little on why Florida abolished them back in the late 80's.

[Danno 1,228]

Unions get to legally bribe legislators? Where?

No, actually "Bribery" has a little more dignity to it... at least with bribery it's someone else's money slipped under the table.

With the Unions getting people elected, they get paid off with public monies.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

No double standard at all. Read up on what the leadership funds are and perhaps a little on why Florida abolished them back in the late 80's.

It is a 100% double standard. You just will not admit it. Yet again you are mad because the reps have found a way to beat the dems at their own game. Tell you what. I will be in favor of abolishing the "leadership funds" if you will be in favor of prohibiting manditory dues from all state workers.

Edited March 31, 2011 by JohnSmith2007