State Rep. Joe Gruters has made headlines this week for leading the charge on a bill to get rid of “dark money” in politics, but the Sarasota Republican is facing criticism that his newfound crusade against shadowy committees is simply a personal vendetta and, contrary to its goal, may actually limit transparency in the political process.
Gruters’ bill, HB 1057, would effectively prohibit political committees and electioneering communications organizations from transferring money to each other, a common practice in politics.
Sen. Debbie Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, is championing the same bill in the Senate.
For Gruters, the investment in the legislation is personal.
It all started last fall when the Committee to Protect Florida and Stop Benefits to Illegals Now dropped a nearly a dozen different mailers in HD 73, accusing Gruters of everything from “climbing the ladder of political ambitions” to being a bad accountant.
Gruters still doesn’t know who sent the mailers. He calls and calls, asking consultants who sent out the attack mail.
No one will say. He’s still in the dark.
Gruters insists transparency was the primary motivating factor for filing the bill.
“[I filed HB 1057] to bring Florida Sunshine to the local and state campaigns,” he told Sunshine State News. “This is the first step to eliminate dark money.”
Under the proposal, only political parties and the House and Senate leadership funds would be allowed to transfer cash to other committees.
Transferring money between committees is currently not illegal -- under state law, political committees have flexibility on how they can spend their money -- which means they can give those funds to political parties and sometimes, even between committees themselves.
It’s a practice both Democrats and Republicans do every election year -- and it’s a practice which has helped many elected officials raise money in contentious cycles.
If Gruters’ bill were to pass, no contributions from business groups’ political committees could be transferred to legislative political committees. Political committees would also be banned from transferring money between each other and political parties.
“Transparency” is a word that comes up time and time again.
Many insist Gruters is not necessarily filing a bill to promote “transparency,” but is filing the proposal because he was slighted personally.
“It’s always dangerous for us to make wide ranging law on any specific personal instances,” said Rep. Matt Caldwell, R-North Fort Myers. “You can get so spun up and focused on what’s being talked about here and completely miss the big picture.”
That big picture, Caldwell said, could effectively shut out millions of Floridians from voicing their thoughts, opinions and concerns in politics.
“‘Business regulation’ sounds really good, but ultimately it ends up being a barrier to entry for the up and comer,” Caldwell told SSN. “The same is true in campaign finance. You end up contorting it in so many ways trying to play whack-a-mole on the way people take advantage of the system, but you make it impossible for the person on the street to get involved in politics.”
Like water, once the money is cut from one faucet, the cash simply flows into a different place -- some of which, like 501(c)(4) organizations, exist at the federal level and allow contributors to remain completely anonymous.
Federal law does not require C4s to disclose their donors publicly. As long as the organizations are operating under “social welfare” causes, they can participate in political campaigns and elections.
Caldwell says C4s are a “moral hazard” of the bill and warned of their dire implications on Florida's political system.
“[They’re actually] less transparent,” said Caldwell.
This isn’t the first time lawmakers have tried to tackle transparency issues with political committees in the Sunshine State. Four years ago, state lawmakers passed legislation to raise contribution caps and require rapid disclosures of donor contributions to political committees, candidate committees and electioneering committees.
Now, reports are updated quarterly -- when campaign season rolls around, those reports are updated monthly, weekly, and eventually every 24 hours.
Some say the constant transfers between committees are used to hide who is really funding campaigns, leading politicians on a wild goose chase to find out who has it out for them. Others say tracing the money isn’t totally impossible -- just a little more difficult than usual, since it requires more legwork and investigative research -- and maybe even some calling around.
A greater fear among some in the process is that Gruters’ bill would actually have the opposite of its intended effect, limiting free speech and violating the First Amendment.
“It won't survive courts,” political consultant Rick Wilson said.
State lawmakers say reporting contributions has helped make the process more transparent. Former House Speaker Will Weatherford, who supported the legislation as a priority during his term as speaker, applauded Gruters’ bill.
“I hope they fix it this time,” he wrote. “The system is flawed.”
Months after he won his election, Gruters is scratching his head, still searching for answers.
If he ever found out who was behind the mailers, Gruters said he’d want to know why someone had it out for him.
“I would like to thank them for not spending the money on one more mailer,” he said. “They almost had me.”
Reach reporter Allison Nielsen by email at allison@sunshinestatenews.com or follow her on Twitter: @AllisonNielsen.
Comments
Under the proposals, HB 1057