Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Rein in the slush funds

The state Legislature took a step in the right direction with its recent lobbying reforms, but it's time to address an even bigger problem.

The Florida Legislature scrubbed some of its darker corners by banning gifts from lobbyists and their clients, then let in some welcome sunshine by requiring lobbyists to disclose their fees. But those reforms that were approved last month should be just the start of the housecleaning, for a bigger job awaits. Now is the time to rein in the slush funds legislators have created that make limits on campaign contributions meaningless and pose a greater threat of corruption and influence peddling than free dinners or football tickets.

Republicans and Democrats have created at least 20 of these unregulated accounts with innocuous names like Senate President Tom Lee's Floridians Uniting for a Stronger Tomorrow. They are generally either committees of continuing existence or 527s, nonprofits named after a tax code provision. There are no limits to contributions to these shadowy accounts, and until last year the contributions did not even have to be promptly disclosed.

This is a scandal waiting to happen. There is a $500 limit on contributions to campaign accounts, but the Florida Cable Telecom Association and lobbyist Ron Book each wrote $10,000 checks to Lee's committee. Lee's slush fund has raised more than $1-million; Democratic Sen. Dave Aronberg of Greenacres has helped raise more than $160,000 for the Florida Mainstream Democratic Alliance. Legislators who control these sorts of accounts will have no trouble paying for meals and other expenses that lobbyists now can't pay for directly.

To his credit, Lee and some other reform-minded legislators are studying possible remedies. It's not that easy, because simply banning the accounts raises constitutional issues about free speech. A more pragmatic, legally defensible approach would be to extend the $500 contribution limit on campaign accounts to these slush funds when they are created or controlled by statewide officeholders, legislators or candidates. That would at least prevent the lobbyists and special interests from writing a single check large enough to buy a new law.

The gift ban and lobbying fee disclosure requirements are less than a month old, but the whining in Tallahassee already has started. The critics inside the Legislature and out are determined to undermine Lee and the other reformers, questioning their sincerity and maneuvering for exemptions. They are correct to portray the slush funds as a more serious ethical swamp, but that doesn't mean banning gifts and disclosing lobbying fees are insignificant. It just means there is even more difficult work to be done.

Some types of these independent accounts originally were intended for members of trade associations and interest groups to participate in the political arena without having to publicly report dues paid by every member. But these independent slush funds created by legislators serve no such public purpose. Lawmakers who control these accounts and accept these large checks are imperiling themselves and the Legislature as an institution. They need only look to the scandals in Washington to see the consequences of too much money flowing in unchecked from special interests and powerful lobbyists.

[Last modified January 7, 2006, 00:12:02]