The Rays strike out with jerseys

The Tampa Bay Rays thought they were on safe ground giving custom jerseys and ball caps to state lawmakers, but attorneys for the House and Senate say otherwise.

The Rays got rid of their lobbyist in February, but the lawyers note that state law defines lobbyist as anyone who worked for compensation during "the preceding 12 months."

So that means the Tampa Bay delegation must return the uniform and caps or pay for them out of their own pocket. And not the $43 the Rays said the jerseys cost. The lawyers, Steve Kahn and Jeremiah Hawkes, are telling lawmakers they must pay full retail, which approaches $100.

"I'm shipping it back," said Rep. Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater. Rep. Rich Glorioso, R-Plant City, is doing the same. Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, sent the team a check this morning.

The jerseys were only the latest gift the Rays gave to lawmakers.

In May, the team invited the delegation to attend a game against the Detroit Tigers, putting lawmakers in a box and aides in the stands.

"I asked ''Why are we being invited?' and they said 'We've never really reached out to anybody,' " Hooper recalled. He said a team representative said it was OK because they did not have a lobbyist. "They said, 'There's no motive.' I can only assume now it was an effort to create warm and fuzzy feelings."

Hooper's office has called the Rays to find out how much the seats cost.

Comments

"I'm shipping it back," said Rep. Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater. Rep. Rich Glorioso, R-Plant City, is doing the same.”

Translation: “Damn, can’t a criminal catch a break these days?”

“Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, sent the team a check this morning.”

Translation: “I’ve got a Hooper stain on it already, and I’m pulling a Monica”

Hey cheap-asss Rays...how aboout you spend your $$$ bringing up a better bullpen instead of keeping your talent in AAA all season, instead of looking to spend millions on a stadium for the league's worst team...God, the Diamondbacks already have a ring and you clowns have yet to achieve .500

Legislators are angry, angry, angry.

- JL in Palm Harbor.

Hey mommy, look at this really cool hat and jersey I got today. I can't wait to take it to show and tell!

[Tim]

The Rays can leave any time. Take Mayor Baker, Jmes Bennett, Commissioner Bob Stewart with them. Stewart was a city council member when he helped waste our tax money. This is the same Bob Stewart who gave Spratt money to leave Spratt should have been fired. Duncan was doing the back door deals with Spratt too cover there back sides.

Tim:
Didn't get a call back from the Ray's recruiter huh?

That's pretty funny! But Tim is right anyway...

I got a call from a “Ray's recruiter” once… it stunned me.

Get it… Ray… stun… “Don’t taze me bro”… Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaa…

Hooper's about a D-D-Deeeeee!

Not a good start for the Rays!

Hooper? Does he represent us in Tallahassee? Never heard of him. Never heard from him.

Hey, before you guys keep pounding on the legislators and on the Rays, how about someone ask the House and Senate counsel to explain their totally bogus legal interpretation?

Old gift law (still on the books, thanks to sloppy drafting of gift ban legislation):
F.S. 112.3148(1)(b): “‘Lobbyist’ means any natural person who, for compensation, seeks, or sought during the preceding 12 months, to influence the governmental decisionmaking of a reporting individual....”

New gift ban law:
F.S. 11.045(1)(h): "'Lobbyist' means a person who is employed and receives payment, or who contracts for economic consideration, for the purpose of lobbying, or a person who is principally employed for governmental affairs by another person or governmental entity to lobby on behalf of that other person or governmental entity."

FS 11, the new statute banning lobbyist gifts, has absolutely no mention of a 12-month period. It talks only of employing a lobbyist in the present tense.

FS 126, the statute these lawyers are citing for the 12-month rule also still contains language ALLOWING gifts from lobbyists!

You can't have it both ways. The gift ban statute has its own definition of lobbyist and it does NOT include the 12-month rule. I'd like for these lawyers to open up Ch. 11 and explain why they're disregarding the definition of "lobbyist" Ch. 11 says applies "in this section" in order to apply the definition in an old statute.

Tell Fasano he should ask for his check back. House and Senate counsel are wrong on this one.

Send the jerseys and Fasano's check to the Boys and Girls Clubs organization in Tampa Bay area, a favorite charity of both Fasano and Major League Baseball.

Of course Fagzano sent a check..he doesn't pay property taxes or insurance since he lives with his mother...he's got plenty of disposable income

10:32 - Nice post. Been waiting for someone to point that out. Time for the SP Times to do their homework and get this right.

Because House and Senate legal folks have this wrong.

Now that's a story.

Those who watched the sloppy way the gift ban was put together have been waiting for just this train wreck.

The finger's being pointed in the wrong direction.

(11:00) poster has it right. It's the House and Senate legal folks that have it wrong, not the Rays and not the legislators.

Hold everything. Looks like the Times might have been painting an inaccurate picture here.

Let's hope if they were, they'll make it right.

[JL]

Whatever the interpretation, we still have a baseball team attempting to circumvent hiring an actual lobbyist, allowing them to shower legislators and staff with freebies prior to a huge vote. All this does is open the door for everyone to conduct business this way, thereby exploiting a gaping hole in the law. House and Senate Counsel may be wrong, but the Rays dropped the ball too - only this time they did it off the field.

If a law is still on the books....guess what....its a law!

The Devil Rays better hire Ballard fast. LOL. Good point 11:33pm.

Um...11:34, did you get a mail-order law degree? Just because a law is still on the books doesn't mean it applies in every situation. Guess what? FS 112 also says that lobbyists can give gifts of up to $100. Does that mean lobbyists can say "Hey, we like 112 better than 11, so we're going to give gifts! If a law is still on the books...guess what...it's a law!"? Sounds pretty dumb, huh? Well, that's exactly what Hawkes and Kahn are saying, from a legal standpoint. "We like the definition in 112 better, so we're going to apply itinstead of the one that 11 says applies to the gift ban." That just doesn't fly. Statutory interpretation doesn't work that way.

"Shower them with gifts"? Puhleeze. It's a jersey, for chrissakes. And they sent them to half the county, not just elected officials. Sports teams employ staffs of gimmicky marketers...and sending a ton of logo stuff to community leaders after a big image launch is textbook marketing. I think a lot of people are pleased to see the Rays finally acting like part of this community and reaching out to people.

[JL]

luxury box, too. Come on kids, this is a desperate team doing desperate things. I actually happen to be an attorney and I have some advice for the Devil Rays; Ask for a legal opinion prior, not subsequent.

they may not be able to give away $100 jerseys, but the Rays can always send a few hundred thousand in donations to any one of a number of 527s, thank you very much Tom Lee.