Welcome to

Florida’s two major parties, the Florida Democratic Party and the Republican Party just got checks totaling more than half a million dollars each. It’s because of a quirk in state law that has the state acting as a bill collector for the major parties. 

As candidates swarmed into the State Division of Elections to run for something . Most plunked down a hefty bit of cash. Six percent of the annual job  salary.

In House Candidate Emma Collum’s case, it was 1782 dollars. And in a strange twist in state law, a third of the fee, or just under 6 hundred dollars went to the State Democratic Party.

“You know it doesn’t bother me because as a Democrat, I support my party” she told us on the last day of qualifying.

Some, including Rob Weissert of Florida Taxwatch, liken the payments to a licensing fee to use the party label. The law has been on the books for decades.

“In this case, the state is requiring, by law, a certain amount of filing fees, ,collecting that, and turning over a percentage of it to the private political party’s” says Weissert.

Those running with no political affiliation pay just two thirds of the fee.

“It raises the bar for candidates who run in one particular political party for them to qualify for the office. So the state is essentially collecting money on behalf of the party’s”   says the Taxwatch researcher.

Florida Republicans just got a check for 537 thousand. Democrats got more, 586 thousand, reflecting more candidates running, especially for jobs that pay more.

“That’s pursuant to state law. It’s a decision whether or not its a good thing. But it’s not ultimately the same as a tax” says Weissert.

And while the state handed over one point one million dollars to the political parties, it spend 12 million running the Division of Elections.

In addition to sharing qualifying fees, the state just sent three point four million to seven statewide candidates who applied for public funding. That did come from the state treasury.

Voters may or may not get a chance to vote on banning Greyhound Racing in Florida. A judge has ruled the language voters will see is misleading and ordered if off the November ballot, but her order won’t be the final word.

The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value read the first words of the proposal to ban greyhound racing. But nowhere in the ballot summary voters would see is that printed. Because of that, and because Floridians at dog tracks would still be able to bet on dog racing in other states. The judge ruled the amendment “hides the ball” and flies under a false flag. She ordered it off the ballot

“In 25 pages she she made the points very very clearly,” says Jack Cory of the Florida Greyhound Association. 

The Association filed the challenge.

“There were multiple points of unconstitutionality. Most importantly, that the constitution and the state statute requires that the body of the amendment that goes on the ballot to be clear” says Cory.

Attorney General and avid dog lover Pam Bondi is promising an expedited appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“We’re really disappointed with the ruling” says Kate McFall with Yes on 13.

Yes on 13 was surprised by the order, believe they will win on appeal, and call it a bad decision. 

“And a judge found that it is misleading. Is it?” We asked.

“No. It’s not misleading. We don’t think so at all and none of the lawyers on our team think its misleading. We think this was a bad ruling.”

The clock is ticking for the court. Most elections supervisors say they need their ballots to the printer no later than the first week of September.

Even if the court doesn’t make the ballot printing deadline, and if justices rule with the Greyhound Association, they court could simply order any votes for 13 not be counted.

A spokesman for the state Supreme Court said vacationing justices are already monitoring an active death warrant and “will do so with any other time-sensitive cases that might require a quick judicial response in the weeks ahead.”

The investigation of a white man who shot a black man after being pushed to the ground is still being investigated in Clearwater, and as Mike Vasilinda tell us, the NRA, says the sheriff doesn’t deserve criticism for not yet filing charges.

On March 23, 2005, opponents predicted chaos in the streets as Stand Your Ground was debated in the Florida House.

“This bill creates a wild, wild west out there” said then Rep. Eleanor Sobel who served in the House until 2006 and then moved to the Senate. 

Sponsor Dennis Baxley fought back.

“I shouldn’t have a duty to retreat. That’s a good way to get shot in the back.”

The NRA’s Marion Hammer was standing next to Jeb Bush when he signed Stand Your Ground into law four weeks later on April 26, 2005. 

“I think it will help us to see lower crime rates, protect people’s rights” said Bush.

“A bill for the people” chimed Hammer.

Hammer knows the law as well as anyone and says Sheriff Bob Gultari shouldn’t be criticized for not arresting anyone in the case.

“If it’s a complicated case, it’s going to take longer” the veteran lobbyist told us. 

At about two minutes and 10 seconds into the surveillance video, this woman exits the store and looks for a second time at the end of the parking lot. This man, who’s been sitting in his car also glances here. Both witnesses could be key to the case.”

25 seconds later Markeis McGlockton exits the store, apparently aware the mother of his children was being confronted by a stranger. Hammer says we don’t know what the Sheriff knows.

“We don’t know how many witnesses. We don’t know what the guy who attacked the guy on the ground said to him.”

Hammer also clarified what was perceived by many as criticism of the Sheriff. Hammer says she was only speaking to what the law says…not the Sheriff himself.

The Florida Senate voted unanimously, 39 to 0 for Stand Your Ground in 2005. The House vote was 94-20. Both votes were bi-partisan.