How sausage is made (or not)
Update, Wednesday p.m.: The Justice amendment was adopted and the overall bill was approved on second reading. The Fasano amendment was withdrawn, as often is the case when a legislator makes the point but does not expect his or her idea to be accepted.
------------------------------
An issue I've written about a lot over the years, and a favorite pet peeve of mine, is the use of tax dollars by local government to tell people which way to vote. Sometimes it's a blatant use of public resources to say, "Vote yes on Measure So-and-So," "Vote No on Amendment 1," and so forth. Sometimes it's a more subtle campaign meant to "educate" the voters. The government has a powerful itch to influence the outcome of elections. Worst of all, doing it is usually portrayed as an apple-pie deed -- the government claims to have a "duty" to educate the voters on which way to vote!
Anyway, for the past couple of years, two Pinellas legislators -- state Sen. Charlie Justice, D-Tampa, and state Rep. Janet Long, D-Seminole, have offered a bill that would prohibit such "electioneering" by local governments. The bill is fairly tame -- it makes it clear that public OFFICIALS continue to have free speech just like everybody else. The bill even has a loophole for truly "educational" material, as long as it doesn't urge a particular election outcome. But Florida's cities, counties and school boards naturally dislike this bill, and it has failed to gain much support in the Legislature. The bills have languished in committee. (Bills that do not get passed always "languish" in committee, don't they?)

This brings us to today. An unrelated elections bill, Senate Bill 866, is up for a vote on the floor of the full state Senate today. And so two senators, Justice (pictured at left) and Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey (right), will try to amend the no-electioneering language into that bill. Fasano's amendment pretty much is the full text of the bill. Justice's amendment says that any electioneering information published by the government has to contain a notice saying it was printed with public money.
I kinda doubt the amendments will make it through, but I am glad to see them in there pitching. I think this is an issue that's been growing in recent years and will sooner or later require the Legislature's intervention.

ANNOUNCEMENT: WEEKLY LIVE CHAT: Join Howard from noon to 1 p.m. each Tuesday here on TroxBlog for a live online chat about current events in Florida and the Tampa Bay area.
Mr. Troxler. Is it like the City of St. Petersburg's web site having a Rays web site link, a MLBaseball link and no POWW link. So they are promoting one side of the issue using tax dollars. "It must be OK because the city approved it, they would know!"
Posted by: get-smart | April 23, 2008 at 10:16 AM
That's a fair point, seems to me, even at this point. Even more so if the council actually schedules an election and they only linked to one side.
But things like that have happened. In a Pasco school-tax election a while back, the schools all had pro-tax literature on their front counters, but refused to allow anti-tax brochures.
It will be interesting to see how much the city tries to "educate" the voters in a stadium election.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | April 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Howard and get-smart,
The games that politicians on every level play with your head is mind boggoling, which of course it is supposed to be.
As I read how the city is going forward getting prices on the property under Tropicana field, I find it without equal to any ruse they used to get the stadium in the first place.
Howard I know you are sick of the stadium talk but I think that is when these people strike with the hot iron.
I think even with all the people against this project, it's chance of being passed is 60 - 40.
Howard I'm sending you a
SIGMA X sticker for your windshield.~~~~~g
Posted by: guy | April 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I say leave it as is; in fact, we should expand the practice.
Note to Justice and Fasano: Call their bluff! Expand the practice to include the use of public funds to organize, advertise, publicize, and televise campaign forums and debates for those involved in local races. It is after all; our “duty” to “educate” the voters… isn’t it? I mean, voters shouldn’t rely on just campaign flyers, mailers, billboards, and commercials funded by special interest contributors to “educate” them… should they?
Watch how fast that kills it.
Posted by: Reality | April 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM