The cost of lobbying: $85 million
That's how much was spent to lobby the Florida Legislature in 2007, according to this report. At the top: AT&T with $620,000.
It only includes, by law, compensation for outside individual and firms. Full time, salaried lobbyists do not need to disclose their fees.
Note: the totals represent a range, not hard numbers. So if a contract is $10,000 to $19,999, then $15,000 is reported. Anything $50,000 and above represents the actual figure.
Of the counties in the Tampa Bay area, Pasco pays at least $90,000; Hillsborough $75,000; and Pinellas $55,000. Hernando did not employ an outside lobbyist.


Thank you CFO Tom Lee
Bwoooohahahahahahaahahahaha
Posted by: | February 15, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Easy to demand tax reform when everybody has to pay to play
Posted by: | February 15, 2008 at 09:46 PM
Sickening reality of our politcal system and the reason the middle class gets screwed..
Posted by: Jason Straight | February 16, 2008 at 06:29 AM
Who cares? I'm so sick of the mind-numbed, knee-jerk aversion to "money in politics" and "special interests." When people talk about reducing the influence of "special interests," they are talking about reducing the influence of you and I. Are you a member of the NRA? The ACLU? The NAACP? A labor Union? A Trade Organization? Then YOU are the "special interests" they are wanting to silence!
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 07:59 AM
Clients should ask what they are spending it on if they cannot host big events or expensive dinners anymore.
And hard for local govts to shout poverty when they spend hundreds of thousands on outside lobbyists (not to mention high priced in house lobbyists)
Posted by: timmy | February 16, 2008 at 08:11 AM
7:49 There is no question that you are money grubbing lobbyist who is paid to suck up to legislators. Get a life.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 08:13 AM
Every interest is special if it is something you care about.
Dog lovers, cat lovers, tree huggers, cancer society, boys and girls clubs, heart association, road builders, fisherman (and women)guides association, "green" issues like solar, nurseries (plants and babies), orange growers, libraries, the press association, ambulance drivers, firefighters, police, troopers, oysterman, condo assoications, nature conservacy, state agencies who are on the other side of special intersts, even butchers, bakers and candlestick makers probably have lobbyist. I know the doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs do. Micky Mouse is a special interest group. Baseball, football, and NASCAR too.
Look at the list, I bet each of us could be a member of three or four special interests groups ourselves whether we contribute to the groups are not. I'm glad they lobby for issues I like.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/data/lobbyist/Reports/Principl_LEG_2008.pdf
If you think lobbying fees are high, that is because you won't take the time to get involved yourself. You have to pay someone to go talk to legislators for you.
Posted by: Joe on the sidelines | February 16, 2008 at 08:50 AM
The media is now using the mid-point of the ranges as their benchmark because they want to know, eventually, exactly how much the lobbyists are making.
I know for a fact that the amounts reported by our contract lobbyists are on the low end of the range. Ergo, the SPT published a fact error. And, I believe they knowingly did it so as to cast lobbyists in the poorest of light
The only "special interest" the media wants to have influence the process is the media.
On one hand, they yammer on (and on and on and on) about the amount of money "special interests" put into the process.
On the other hand, they also brag about their own ability to influence public opinion, the debate on public policy, and about their ability to force a legislator into/away from a particular course of action by spreading that person's name across the front page.
The only difference between the press and the "special interests" is the press uses someone else's money to influence the process (their subscribers and viewers).
It's time the press disclosed fully their salary and investments (like the legislators) or, the range of their compensation (like the lobbyists).
8:50 a.m. aka Joe on the sidelines is right...the reason lobbying fees are high is because "Joe Lunchbucket" won't take the time to get involved.
Why do you think Joe isn't involved?
Simple, because the press says, "we're here watching them for you..."
Fox, meet henhouse...
Posted by: cynical idealist | February 16, 2008 at 09:13 AM
8:13 - many of these "money grubbing lobbyists" work for non-profit organizations, associations and small businesses trying to provide you with a better quality of life. Your moronic statement merely shows your idiocy.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM
7:59 & Joe,
No.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM
What the money grubbers report is greatly understated with all kinds of loopholes. Salaries of their employees and what they pay to their attorneys (aka lobbyists) are either under reported or not reported. The simple fact is, the people are involved. They elect representatives who are paid to look after the balanced interests of their constituents - not to be bribed by the influencing peddling lobbyists. Lobbyists exist because they bundle campaign contributions and trade this for access. It is a corrupt system that no thoughtful person can defend.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Lobbyist = Influence Peddler
Money = Influence
Getting Elected = Money
Special Interest = Money
Public getting screwed = All of the above
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
8:13
You need to understand that lobbyists are leaches who contribute nothing but corruption to our system of government. Ultimately their full costs are born by the very citizens they are screwing through higher taxes or higher product costs.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Ronald Reagan Would Back McCain
by Michael Reagan (more by this author)
Posted 02/15/2008 ET
Updated 02/15/2008 ET
In 1976 the Ford vs. Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination got so heated it looked as if my father and Jerry Ford would never again talk to one another.
When it was over and Ford had won, what did Ronald Reagan do? He simply went all-out to help Ford win his re-election, as did I and as did my sister Maureen. My dad simply followed his rule of backing the Republican candidate no matter who he was.
Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues.
Unlike my father, a lot of conservatives stayed home in 1976, and we got four years of Jimmy Carter, whose main legacy was to drive the Shah of Iran from power and create the Islamic Republic of Iran with a bunch of wild-eyed mullahs running the show. He also gave us 20 percent inflation and long, long l ines at the gas pumps. And don’t forget 440 days of Americans held hostage by the mullahs.
By staying home those conservatives made possible the future election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
We are still suffering from the legacy of James Earl Carter, thanks to the conservatives who refused to follow Ronald Reagan’s example and instead sulked at home while the nation was being handed over to the worst president in American history.
We were still in the middle of the Cold War in those days, and by staying home conservatives risked losing that war by allowing an incompetent leader to become commander in chief.
Four years later Ronald Reagan took over, the hostages were immediately released, and he went on to win the Cold War. Now we have another world-wide war going on with a hidden enemy sworn to kill us all, and the policy of the Democrats running for the presidency is to throw up their hands and withdraw from the battlefield, leaving it to the enemy -- and our fate in the hands of Osama bin Laden.
Is that what the let’s-stay-home-on-election-day conservatives want? Do they want the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, as their president? Do they want the pseudo-Marist Barack Obama -- who reportedly has a photo of the murderous Castroite thug Che Guevara hanging in his Houston, Texas campaign headquarters -- hanging that photo in the Oval Office?
Do they want Hillary Clinton, the duplicitous former first lady, back in the White House enjoying all those furnishings she and her husband tried to swipe from the mansion?
Do they want a Democrat spending even more money that the government doesn’t have on scores of programs right out of Karl Marx’s playbook?
That’s exactly what they’ll get if they sit out the election and stay home on Election Day. That’s called biting off your nose to spite your face. Or even more to the point, political suicide.
Let me say this. There has been plenty of battling in the primaries, and I’ve been in the middle of the battle, but until now haven’t committed myself to any candidate, waiting until we had a nominee.
That’s over.
If John McCain is the nominee of the party, this Reagan will happily campaign with him. The alternative is unthinkable to anyone who loves this nation.
Mr. Reagan is a syndicated radio talk-show host, author of "Twice Adopted" (Broadman & Holman Publishers) and "The City on a Hill,"and the son of former President Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
all that money for THIS crop of droolers and pants-wetters?
only could the florida legislature make gwchimp SEEM to be an intelligent life-form!!
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM
of course ronnieray-gun would back johnnie walnutzz!!
ronnie ray-gun wasw certifiably gaa-gaa!!
then he died!!
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Anyone who gets their panties in a wad over this is an ignorant reactionary buffoon.
Posted by: jbp | February 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I wonder how much lobbyists are billing for the time they spend on this blog site. It is very apparent that their panties are all wadded up over getting outed. Even Bob Allen didn't complain as much as they are.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM
After reading the SP Times article this morning, my son told me that he wants to be a lobbyist and get rich quick. It is a good thing that he is only home for a weekend visitation and returns to the inmate work release program on Monday morning. I would much rather my son be an inmate than a lobbyist.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM
All that money to fund higher education, and look how little it has accomplished! The funding level is a joke for our Universities, and the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves!
Posted by: Jerry | February 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM
For all the vitriol spouted here about lobyists, there should be some delineation between lobbs for non-profits, and those whose clients stand to make big big bucks out of "tweaking" some bill or inserting an amendment that makes everyone pay more while the company rakes it in.
(now wait for the squeals from the short-tie boys, they'll be outraged)
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 01:27 PM
Anyone who suggests that a member of the public should even attempt to get involved in the legislative process needs a serious reality check. Have you ever seen how common citizens get treated when they go to Tallahassee? If they try to testify before a committee the legislators' eyes glaze over, they start having side bar conversations, or they simply get up and leave. Legislators do the same thing whenever a public interest type lobbyist speaks. It is the rudest behavior I have ever observed. The only time these guys start paying attention is when some lobbyist whose client gives loads of $$$ gets up to speak.
Posted by: Get real | February 16, 2008 at 02:04 PM
If government were not so big and full of money, no one would need lobbyists. Lobbyists are the symptom, not the disease. The right to petition one's government is a fundamental right.
Posted by: Boca Grande | February 16, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Lobbyists are the disease. A dirty, ugly, puss-filled pimple of the a*ss of our political system.
It has been and will continue to be the problem with our democracy.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 05:17 PM
What I would like to disclosed is the amount of money that goes to 527's and the special party funds and "leadership Funds" that is where the real influnce money is being spent....can spt really do some reporting and get us those numbers...it would shock everyone...Oh and dont forget that any legislator can have a 527 leave office and keep the money....
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 07:37 PM
As a highly profitable Tallahassee Lobbyist, I would like to add that this is all very flattering- Its gotta drive you anti-lobby types crazy to know that there is NOTHING you can do to change it. You poor things.
Posted by: bbea | February 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM
This is 7:59 here, and for the record, no, I am not a lobbyist. I don't even know any lobbyists personally. I just believe in the freedom of the people to unite their voices and petition their elected representatives.
We should all be VERY afraid of those who try to prevent our voices from being heard by our representatives.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 10:25 PM
This must change. If there is no reform of the system, then your representative governemnt will always be bought by the highest bidder. Disgusting
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:03 PM
If Reagan's son REALLY the nasty, inaccurate smear diatribe above, he owes Senator Obama a VERY PUBLIC APOLOGY.
Editors -- please verify if poster used real person's identity --- falsely.
Posted by: | February 16, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Lobbyists need to reinvent themselves and call themselves specialists, like a surgeon. When you need surgery you go to a specialist. You don't operate on yourself. When an organization has an issue that needs tending to you hire a specialist.
Posted by: Sam kuhn | February 17, 2008 at 07:04 PM
When you need a politician bribed... you call a specialist.
Posted by: | February 18, 2008 at 08:27 AM
lobbyists are simply the result of our constitutional guarantees of freedom of association and freedom of speech - so relax you lobbyist bashers
Posted by: | February 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM
"lobbyists are simply the result of our constitutional guarantees of freedom of association and freedom of speech..."
What a freaking load. Yeah, and murderers are simply the result of our constitutional guarantees to bear arms.
Lobbying (aka: legalized bribery) is what’s wrong with our system.
Posted by: | February 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM
11:04 - incorrect - many murders are the result of the infringment of our individual constitutional right to bear arms - just look at DC for an example of absolute restrictions of handguns that resulted in it becoming the nurder capital of the nation, because law abiding citizens couldn't defend themselves.
you're pretty stupid. ignorance like yours is what's wrong with our system.
Posted by: | February 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
11:33 - incorrect - many murders are the result of criminals who wish to do harm to others; period. No restrictions of lobbying (aka: legalized bribery) has led to the waste of billions of tax dollars, leaving taxpayers with no opportunity to defend themselves.
you're very stupid. misquided ignorance like yours, is what's wrong with our system and our world.
Posted by: | February 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM
11:33 - and many of those murders would be prevented if the victim was packing some heat - please take your ideas of utopia and shove 'em, it's ideas like yours that kills people
Posted by: | February 19, 2008 at 09:44 AM
woops - above meant to refer to the idiot at 12:08
Posted by: | February 19, 2008 at 09:45 AM
The lobbyist bashers are jealous that people know the process better than them.
Posted by: | February 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM