The phone bill is coming due

SMITH E-mail: Click here

When a bill wins overwhelming bipartisan support in Tallahassee, do we assume it's politically safe and fine for consumers? Or merely that it's been well-greased by millions of dollars in political contributions?

Now that it has led directly to rising phone bills across Florida during a competitive campaign season, we may soon see how politically safe it was. A lot of ambitious politicians on both sides of the aisle are about to start having to defend two- and three-year-old votes on telecommunications bills universally condemned by consumer advocates.

"It's the kind of thing that touches real people in a real way," said Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist, who as attorney general delayed the rate increase with an ultimately unsuccessful court fight.

"Absolutely, it will be an issue," agreed Democratic state Rep. Charlie Justice of St. Petersburg, now running in Florida's most competitive state Senate district. "It was a clear vote on who's on the side of consumers and who's on the side of special interests. It was a straight-up vote on whether the representatives in Tallahassee were representing their constituents or representing the lobbyists."

Justice is eager to contrast his votes on the measure to those of state Rep. Frank Farkas, R-St. Petersburg, who also is running for that state Senate seat and supported the controversial telecommunications bills in 2002 and 2003.

But Justice could wind up on the ticket with some prominent Democrats who voted the same way as Farkas: gubernatorial candidate Rod Smith and attorney general candidate Walter "Skip" Campbell, both state senators.

With Florida voters seeing soaring prices for gas, insurance and prescription drugs, a host of candidates have to accept responsibility for Florida's largest-ever telephone rate increase - critics call it a $344-million increase - which went into effect this month.

"This has got to be one of the worst pieces of consumer legislation that ever passed," said AARP state director Bentley Lipscomb. "We don't intend to let this die. A lot of these (legislators) got a free ride because people didn't know how they'd voted."

Rarely do legislative votes have enough juice and staying power to sway average voters in election after election. This one stands to keep hitting people in their wallets year after year.

Until now, voters may not have noticed how their legislators voted on the rate increases. Both political parties agreed not to attack each other on the issue in the 2004 legislative elections. But that mutual nonaggression pact is crumbling, and Lipscomb promises the AARP will keep reminding its 2.7-million members to thank their lawmakers for their increased phone bills.

Don't expect a lot of apologies from the vast majority of lawmakers who backed the measures, however.

"I stand by that vote 100 percent," said state Rep. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, who supported the telecom bill and as House appropriations chairman has raised nearly $1-million for his campaign for attorney general. "The Legislature should not be in the rate business, and the bill enabled the (Public Service Commission) to make a decision that was in the public interest." The day before this year's legislative session started, Negron received maximum $500 contributions from AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon.

Democratic attorney general contender Campbell was slightly less adamant: "You guys are probably going to make it look like it was a bad vote, but from the information that was presented to us, I think it was a good bill."

Lawmakers overwhelmingly passed the measure in 2002. But, but in the midst of what looked like a potentially tough re-election campaign, Gov. Jeb Bush vetoed it, saying consumers needed more safeguards. After a few adjustments the following nonelection year, Bush signed the bill overwhelmingly passed by lawmakers again.

"This is one of those bills where there are winners and losers," Sen. Smith said after voting for the telecom bill in 2002. "I think the phone bill for my mother will go up, but the phone bill for my daughter will go down."

Smith, whose gubernatorial campaign has received at least $6,000 from the telecommunications industry, stands by his votes and downplayed the political fallout.

"What's the (resulting monthly) rate increase that BellSouth has? I think it's $1.15," said a dismissive Smith, whose campaign co-chairman, Bob Butterworth, aggressively opposed the legislation as attorney general.

Smith's rival for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, U.S. Rep. Jim Davis of Tampa, was not in the Legislature for the votes. But campaign spokesman Danae Jones said Davis "thinks this is just another example of special interests in Tallahassee getting exactly what they want."

Critics including AARP and other consumer advocacy groups argued that the bill written by telecom lobbyists effectively required the PSC to approve the rate increases. Once the law goes fully into effect, the phone companies can hike their rates 20 percent a year without anyone's okay.

That may provide a measure of parity to some vastly outfunded candidates in this election cycle who voted against the telecom bill. Republican state Sen. Burt Saunders of Naples, for instance, has raised about one-tenth as much money as Negron in the attorney general's race, but he can crow about being one of just 12 state senators who voted against the bill in 2003.

Likewise, in the state Senate race to succeed Republican Jim Sebesta (who voted for the telecom bill), Justice is lagging far behind Republican state Reps. Farkas and Kim Berfield in money but is thrilled to talk about the bill.

Farkas consistently backed the telecom industry proposals. Berfield says she followed the lead of her constituents, who opposed the measure. But she has not exactly been the model of clarity on the issue.

In 2002, Berfield joined Farkas in voting for the telecom bill Bush vetoed. A year later, she missed the May 1, 2003 House floor vote on the bill (she says she thinks she was busy with workers' compensation legislation). But for the record, she ultimately logged in her unofficial vote after the fact on May 8.

In fact, she logged it in several times, according to the official "after roll call" record:

10:17 a.m. May 8: Berfield logged in a "nay" vote

10:40 a.m. May 8: Berfield logged in a "yea" vote

10:41 a.m. May 8: Berfield logged in a "nay" vote, her final one.

"I just got screwed up," Berfield said. "The bottom line is, I was a no."

The law could prove a little awkward even for some of those who fought hard against it.

Attorney General Crist, for instance, boosted his consumer crusader image by suing to stop the rate increases. But Crist said little or nothing to dissuade lawmakers from passing the bill in the first place.

State Sen. Tom Lee, R-Valrico, was a vocal opponent of the bill from the start and in 2004 publicly scoffed at Crist's legal fight against the telecom bill. "Nothing other than an attempt to get in the newspaper every day, God bless him," Lee said of Crist.

"But I'll be damned if I'm going to continue to expand the authority of the attorney general, who is proving to me day in and day out that he is a hell of a lot better politician than a lawyer," said Lee at the time.

Now Lee is running statewide for chief financial officer. (His rival for the Republican nomination, state Rep. Randy Johnson, supported the telecom bill.) In a campaign in which he needs to play nice with Republican leaders and may well share the general election ballot with Crist, Lee may find such blunt talk less productive.

And a slew of politicians who in 2002 and 2003 saw safety in numbers as they voted for a massive residential phone rate increase may find themselves much more precariously positioned than they expected.

--Adam C. Smith can be reached at 727 893-8241 or adam@sptimes.com

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright