The politics of distraction at the PSC

With FPL’s billion dollar rate case hearings ending Friday, one thing has become abundantly clear as you look over the issues that were given extra time during the life of the case. The Public Service Commissioners, intervenors, and media had a bad habit of dwelling on the issues that don’t actually make a difference for customer’s bills. Whether it’s questions about the intentions of customers at quality service hearings, rate case expenses, corporate jets, or executive bonuses, politics is usually what plays a role in highlighting these issues.

The latest flare up stemmed from an anonymous letter sent to the PSC that showed a grid indicating that FPL worked to turn out customer to speak positively about FPL in service quality hearings earlier this year. FPL confirmed that they did attempt to get as many people out as possible with positive comments so that Commissioners could hear from customers with good experiences. The interesting twist was that the Florida Retail Federation, who I’ve written about before, and AARP were doing the exact same thing. So all it compares to is the opposing sides in a political campaign turning out their supporters.

This is exactly the type of issue that the media jumps all over, and several commissioners showed a strong interest. Commissioner Nathan Skop, Commissioner Nancy Argenziano and intervenors asked how much staff time and thus rate payer dollars were expended by FPL in this process, but it ultimately amounted to very little at all. Commissioner Argenziano’s pin messages even showed a near obsession that she had with addressing the problem, but for all the attention to this matter in the past week, it basically has no financial impact on customers, nor was it illegal in any way. The only thing it accomplished was serving as a major distraction – with very suspect timing – at the end of the rate case. With all that has happened regarding quality service hearings, they should probably just do away with them to avoid future politicization.

As another example, elected officials can be just as guilty. On Friday, State Representative Mark Pafford filed legislation to require those who testify in front of utility regulators to reveal their ties to utility companies. This is just the type of “feel good” legislation that is great for a politician’s re-election campaign, but it accomplishes little for constituents. Wouldn’t it be better to file legislation that reforms the PSC as a whole instead of this narrow focus, or more importantly file an economic stimulus package or some other job creation bill during these tough economic times?

Many have also been upset about the $3.6 million in rate case expenses such as legal costs, consultants, lodging, travel and meals, FPL budgeted and customers would have to pay for. And because the hearings have dragged on longer than previously anticipated, the expenses are expected to balloon to $5 million with FPL covering any amounts over $3.6 million. If customers have to pay any of it, then there should at least be some kind of cap on the budget set by the PSC depending on the number of customers a company has. For all the focus it fairly received, you would think this would have a huge effect on a customer’s bill but it ends up having little financial impact because it’s a miniscule amount in the overall rate case.

There are similar points with executive compensation and corporate jets. After the big three auto CEOs went to Congress on private jets, and executives at companies bailed out by the federal government during the global economic crisis received lavish bonuses, the public is naturally sensitive. Unfortunately for ratepayers, unequal media attention and interest from intervenors and commissioners alike, have allowed for FPL’s use of corporate jets and performance based bonuses for its executives to distract heavily from the rate case. To that end, FPL agreed to remove $16 million in aviation costs and $37 million for executive compensation from the rate request, which was unfair to include and not very smart to make customers pay in the first place. While this deservedly frustrates customers, the dollar amounts are a small portion of the overall request and little impact on a customer’s bill.

You might ask why issues like this receive the most attention. The answer is simple. Politics.

From intense media scrutiny to statewide elected officials applying pressure, the politicization of the rate case has resulted in three negative effects. The first effect is the public has a fundamental lack of understanding for the complex financial issues that are the underlying driver for FPL’s performance as a company. Equity ratios, cost reduction, depreciation, financing costs, facility maintenance and overall operational efficiency aren’t exactly the most exciting of issues – possibly explaining the media’s lack of attention – but they are the real indicators to be considered by the PSC and public at-large.

The second effect is a high proportion of the rate hearings being dedicated to hot button political issues and taking away from the important financial benchmarks listed above. Furthermore, it has resulted in a prolonged case that caused increased costs for both FPL (ratepayers) and the PSC (taxpayers). For this reason alone and seeing that the hearings are now complete, the PSC should not delay its decision as previously requested by Governor Crist. The third and final risk is that commissioners will ultimately make a political decision, not one based on the financial evidence and cold hard facts that have far more affect on the rates that consumers actually pay.

Politicians, the media and several PSC commissioners broadcast an image of looking out for consumers and they mean well. But sometimes their actions and attentiveness actually make the case even more difficult to solve. With all the focus on who is attending service hearings or flying on corporate jets, the details of salaries or other expenses that have little effect on the bottom line – combined with the perception of coziness to utilities – has allowed for grand standing to get in the way of what is truly important to the ratepayer. And that is the factors that will ultimately impact how much their bill is.

With all that has transpired, I am still hopeful that Commissioners Lisa Edgar, Matthew Carter, Nancy Argenziano, Nathan Skop, and David Klement (replacing Katrina McMurrian) will make their decision based on that evidence, and that evidence alone.

Who’s driving the drilling debate?

The next big special interest showdown surrounding Florida will revolve around whether or not offshore drilling should be allowed off its coasts. The controversy is heating up, mainly due to the colossal amounts of influence and money flooding into Tallahassee from outside special interest groups. Despite their very public efforts, the main player refuses to disclose their ties and even list of members to the public, in addition to being a front for out of state interests. This key group, who stands to influence the outcome of this critical debate, largely operates outside of the public’s eye.

That group is Florida Energy Associates. FEA is, according to Catherine Dolinksi of the Tampa Tribune, “a mostly anonymous group of oil and gas companies that want to drill off Florida’s Gulf Coast” that will not identify the members that comprise the association. The St. Pete Times was able to reveal the identities of the main partners: M. Lance Phillips, owner of Oil and Gas Acquisitions, and William Sessions, the brother of Texas congressman Pete Sessions. Both men are well-off lawyers from oil-rich Texas. However, the other businesses, associations and oil industry leaders who are principal members of FEA are still not known.

For all its secrecy, FEA has been the key driver pushing the pro side of the oil drilling debate in Florida. It now has over 31 lobbyists on its payroll, “with individual lobbyists hired to target key members or groups, such as African-Americans or liberal Jewish members from South Florida.” Recently, they hired Sean Pittman, “a lobbyist with close access to many African-American lawmakers, whose districts are mostly landlocked.” That support could be crucial to push offshore oil drilling through the Florida Senate, since several moderate Republican senators are against the measure. The oil industry even has two State Senators on the inside now: Alex Diaz de la Portilla and John Thrasher. Sen. Diaz de la Portilla, the new Senate Energy committee chair married to FEA’s chief lobbyist, and recently elected Sen. Thrasher used to work for Southern Strategies Group, one of the largest lobbying firms in Florida that has oil industry clients.

FEA also has contributed $125,000 to Florida’s two major political parties – $75,000 to the Republican Party of Florida and $50,000 to the Florida Democratic Party. When asked about their political contributions, Doug Daniels, the COO for FEA, claimed they prefer to give contributions to political parties directly so there is less backlash politically. If the FEA donated to individual state House or Senate candidates, Daniels admitted that the candidates “would have the difficulty of trying to explain why they’re taking a contribution from an organization like that.” However, he also claimed that the FEA wasn’t attempting to purchase influence with state policy makers. Ben Wilcox from the watchdog group Common Cause Florida vehemently disagrees. He argues that if the donations did not influence votes, “these people wouldn’t be making campaign contributions of $120,000-plus. They’re hoping, definitely, to get a favorable outcome out of it. They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t think it made a difference.”

Overseeing the entire public affairs and relations process is David Rancourt from Southern Strategy Group. Rancourt was an aide to former Governor Jeb Bush and became known in Florida due to his ability to use relationships to ensure clients, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, get state contracts. And now he is using his influence to advance FEA’s agenda.  In a move that shocked environmentalists and progressive organizations, FEA secured the backing of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association on the promise that some of the oil revenues would go to funding solar projects. What went largely unnoticed is that Rancourt is a registered lobbyist for both the FEA and FSEIA. Using his power to lock up benefits from the government certainly would not be anything new for Rancourt, and it seems quite possible that his ties to FSEIA were what sealed the unlikely deal.

FEA isn’t the only group trying to influence the debate, nor do they make up the only side. Eric Draper from Audubon of Florida has been outspoken in opposing offshore oil drilling and has formed the Protect Florida’s Beaches coalition in an attempt to mobilize activists against the possibility of drilling in Florida. The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense have also weighed in, with Carolyn Oblin creating a Facebook Group, Floridians against Big Oil, to mobilize voters to keep the pressure on Florida lawmakers.

Even though there is some opposition, it’s clear that FEA is better funded, has more connections, and is better organized, while at the same time, being far less open and transparent. The average Florida voter should know exactly who is trying to influence the debate over Florida’s energy future, and also where their true interests lie. As long as shadowy groups have all the resources, Floridians are being denied the opportunity to truly understand the debate.

UPDATE (10-23-09): News broke that that freshman U.S. Senator George LeMieux advised FEA right up until he was appointed by Gov. Charlie Crist. The situation remains “murky”, according to the St. Pete Times, because LeMieux won’t say what he did for the FEA – claiming client confidentiality – and Doug Daniels for FEA claims he can’t remember what LeMieux did.

UPDATE (10-26-09): Columns and editorials are rolling against FEA:

TC Palm: “Gov. Charlie Crist, a professed environmentalist who jets off to “green” summits and has sponsored a few, could fire a shot across the bow of the oil industry behemoth by declaring his unalterable opposition to expanded drilling.”

St. Pete Times: “Money, oil and secrecy make a dangerous brew… If the consortium wanted to be a more trusted force on public policy it would waive any privilege and encourage LeMieux to disclose his advice and how much he was paid. The information is relevant to LeMieux’s future actions on a federal proposal to open up offshore drilling.”

Miami Herald: “The mystery group trying to repeal Florida’s ban on offshore oil drilling is winning converts the old-fashioned way, deploying a battalion of lobbyists and throwing campaign money at state legislators.”

Newspapers line up against CCEs and ECOs

Since my last blog post about the Florida Division of Elections issuing an opinion on electioneering communication organizations, several newspaper editorial boards have come out against the use of last minute attacks by these groups:

St. Pete Times Editorial

When well-financed special interests can hide behind shell groups that do their dirty political work, the anonymity encourages such despicable tactics as the inflammatory race-baiting flier used in a recent North Florida Senate primary election. The piece — along with other slick, anonymous attacks in the Republican primary for Senate District 8 — symbolizes why the Legislature must rewrite Florida’s campaign finance law so voters know who is behind such sleaze.

Earlier this year, a federal judge correctly ruled a state campaign finance law was unconstitutional. He said the law’s definition of an elections communications organization, also called ECO, was so broad that it dampened the free speech rights of small grass roots groups that occasionally engage in political speech but find it onerous to comply with state financial disclosure requirements.

But the practical effect of the ruling, as witnessed in the Jacksonville election, is untenable. The Legislature must craft a new law requiring timely financial disclosure by stealth groups that pop up days before an election. Failing to regulate such groups creates a free-for-all where there is no way to know who is behind well-financed political messages.

Tallahassee Democrat Editorial

Here in the capital city, it’s well known, especially among owners of restaurants, hotels and nightspots, that lawmakers are banned from accepting any meals or gifts whatever, and even at election time, they cannot accept campaign contributions larger than $500.

These are meant to be constraints on coziness with contributors; meant to ensure autonomy and independent thought in their voting.

Sometimes it works; sometimes, however, there are ways around these safeguards that mean lawmaking continues in that old familiar vein: business as usual.

What is still little-known by the general public is that any lawmaker can routinely accept much larger checks for food, drink and travel through committees allowed under state law — called committees of continuous existence (aka 527s, so-named for an IRS code) — and also through state parties.

Howard Troxler, St. Pete Times

This past week, we learned that the lawyers were behind a particularly nasty, racist mailer with photographs of President Barack Obama, the Black Panthers, the Rev. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and black marchers with ACORN signs. The caption: “Is this the change YOU want to believe in?”

The irony is that the lawyers’ group, the Florida Justice Association, is more closely identified with the Democratic Party than conservative causes. The intent apparently was to rile up conservative voters against Thrasher in a Republican primary.

The lawyers hid behind the names “Conservative Voters’ Coalition” and “Conservative Citizens for Justice.”

Conflicts of interest at the Florida PSC require investigation

Earlier this year, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and Progress Energy Florida (PEF) filed requests to raise the base electric rates for their customers, and it’s shaping up to be an epic special interest battle. On one hand you have the electric utility companies and in opposition you have the intervenors, some of the largest power users in the state: healthcare associations, industrial companies, and major retail chains. As with any major decision in the regulatory process, the companies and corporate trade associations attempt to sway the decision-making body with any and all of the tools at their disposal.

The problem is that the media seems to have only scratched the surface of potential ethics violations and conflicts of interest that could reach far into the Florida Public Service Commission. Just this past Monday – the first day of FPL’s rate hearings – the initial item addressed was a potential conflict of interest that came to light over the weekend.

The Miami Herald reported that:

Commissioner Nathan Skop called for the resignation of Ryder Rudd, the commissioner’s director of strategic analysis and governmental affairs, based on a phone call he had received from Rudd over the weekend in which Rudd acknowledged attending a Kentucky Derby party in May at the home of Ed Tancer, FPL’s vice president.

Even though Rudd did not directly work on the rate case, he was removed from any FPL related cases – pending an investigation into his action – because he had supervisory roles over rate case staff opinions and was a part of a separate FPL pipeline case. Commissioner Skop and State Senator Mike Fasano called for his resignation, while Commissioner Argenziano called for an investigation into the entire PSC:

Commissioner Nancy Argenziano said that the attorney general and the PSC’s inspector general should investigate Rudd, adding that the investigation into potential conflicts with regulated industries should include other staff and PSC commissioners.

“This should prompt a thorough investigation of the whole place and that means commissioners,” she told the Herald/Times. She said she believes that some staff members and some commissioners are “too cozy” with those they are charged with regulating.

The one thing that seems to have fallen off the media’s radar is that they haven’t fully investigated how specific commissioners could have been influenced by conflicts of interest or campaign contributions.

According to FPSCReports.com, a website dedicated to investigative reporting on public servants who make utility-related decisions, Commissioners McMurrian and Skop attended a private utility conference in New York earlier this year. McMurrian had enough potential violations that FPSCReports.com even sent a letter to the Attorney General’s office asking for her recusal from the FPL/PEF rate cases pending before the Commission.

The website also notes that Commissioners McMurrian, Skop & Chairman Carter lead the PSC in travel – a concern because it presents an opportunity for utility representatives to directly influence Commissioners.

When Commissioner Argenziano asked to also have other staff and commissioners investigated, was she referring to these violations, or something else not yet reported? Some insiders claim to have seen Commissioner Skop drinking in public with utility staff, and others say that Commissioner Argenziano has been a frequent guest at corporate interest group parties.

Does that surprise you? Me either.

Gifts and conflicts of interest aren’t the only way that corporations and associations attempt to influence the Public Service Commission though. There are also campaign contributions, which the Miami Herald reported on in a rundown FPL’s extensive political giving:

FPL has traditionally been one of the most generous campaign contributors in the state. It has given more than $250,000 to state political parties and candidates for the 2010 elections, and state records show it gave at least $5.7 million over the last 15 years. It became a major sponsor of Crist’s two climate change summits…

… since Crist announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate, FPL has contributed at least $26,600 to his campaign account. FPL declined to comment on who it hires as consultants or why it contributes money to candidates.

Commissioners Matthew Carter and Katrina McMurrian have asked to be reappointed and the panel that decides includes six legislators who have received FPL contributions.

According to the Florida Division of Elections website, Commissioner Argenziano received about $10,000 in campaign contributions from some of the intervenors: Florida Hospital Association PAC, Florida Retail Federation and associated PACs, and Publix PAC, to name a few. Coincidentally, FPL does not appear to be a big benefactor of Argenziano, and, listening to her frequent sarcasm toward the utility and unusual sympathy for corporate intervenors, it sounds like she hasn’t forgotten.

There are also reports that Argenziano frequently consults on utility issues with Mike Twomey, the lobbyist for AARP, a regular rate case intervenor. Twomey appears to have a serious potential conflict of interest as a paid lobbyist for a company that opposed FPL on its $1.5 billion pipeline proposal and a wireless phone company regulated by the Commission. Some speculate that Twomey is still advising Commissioner Argenziano to this day, but it does not appear that he is actively participating in the FPL hearings.

As you can see, there are both facts and rumors swirling around all of the Commissioners. It’s safe to say that we don’t yet know the whole story of how special interests have been influencing members and staff of the Florida Public Service Commission. But as Commissioner Skop said Monday, “such inexcusable conduct undermines the public trust and confidence in the regulatory process and impugns the integrity of this commission” so these infractions must be brought to light immediately, whether it’s by the media or an independent government investigation of the entire agency.

Florida election law: the wild, wild west until further notice

Since my blog post about special interest groups using ECOs to attack candidates at the last minute, the Florida Division of Elections has issued an opinion on the matter. Some of the more frightening points are that candidates can steer money from their legal slush funds, also known as committees of continuous existence, to ECOs running late minute campaign attacks. It also does not clear up whether candidates can actually coordinate with these committees. So until legislation – hopefully in the 2010 legislative session – passes to more specifically address the finer points, special interests and the politicians in their pockets will retain lots of power to fund last minute attacks.

Gary Fineout of The Fine Print reports more:

One clear consequence of the opinion: Lawmakers and other elected officials who run or control their own committees are free to send money that they collect into the coffers of organizations that now do not have to report any details until after Election Day.

Palmer wrote that Florida law “clearly does not prohibit a former ECO from receiving funds from political committees or committees of continuous existence.” Political committees and CCEs are two types of political organizations that remain regulated and have limits on either donations or expenses.
But Mark Herron, a veteran elections and ethics attorney based In Tallahassee, said the new opinion means that lawmakers can steer money they collect for their CCEs into these unregulated organizations as long as legislators don’t control or solicit money directly for the group. No one will know much about the organization until it files reports with the IRS. IRS guidelines don’t require reports for the final quarter of the year until the end of January.

One big item that the opinion does not address is whether or not candidates are allowed to coordinate with the now unregulated ECOs. A previous Division of Elections opinion stated that there was nothing that prevented those who run an ECO from consulting and planning with a candidate which ads to run and in which media markets to run the ads.

Jennifer Krell Davis, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Kurt Browning, said that since ECOs were now unregulated there was nothing in the law that would change the 2005 opinion.

“It’s not going to negate the previous opinion,” said Davis.

Meyer said he doesn’t disagree with the May ruling that the previous law went too far, but he said he believed the Legislature could still come back in 2010 and adopt a narrower set of requirements for ECOs.

Florida’s health care industry flexes its muscles

If there ever was any doubt about the power of special interest groups to affect public policy, Florida’s healthcare industry serves as a lesson that there are very powerful interest groups that fight tooth and nail to protect their interests. While the debate over healthcare reform continues on the federal level, Florida’s health care organizations are also hard at work influencing legislative debates.

The Florida Medical Association has been vocal in its opposition to a public health insurance option even bucking its parent organization, the American Medical Association, for supporting the current efforts in Congress. And just last week, I wrote about how they funded a last minute attack on 2008 state Senate candidate Tim Ryan through an electioneering communication organization.

The Florida Hospital Association hasn’t been as big a player in the national healthcare debate, but they did partner with the South Florida Hospital & Healthcare Association to advocate a $1 per pack increase in the cigarette tax while fighting any cuts in Medicaid funding during the 2009 legislative session in Florida. In 2006, the South Florida Hospital & Healthcare Association opposed a Medicare auditing program that corrected overpayments to hospitals so that taxpayers can recoup the money – a program that eventually returned $34 million.

In an interesting twist, the South Florida Hospital & Healthcare Association is opposing a request for a base rate increase that Florida Power & Light has before the Florida Public Service Commission this month. They reason that this is too much with the current state of the economy despite having similar requests of their own earlier in the year.

On the federal level, powerful health care interest groups follow similar tactics but are also pitted against each other.  As a result, healthcare reform on the federal level has been repeatedly stalled and defeated – making it long overdue.

Typically, interest group fights involve one industry against another, but health care reform includes hospitals, physicians, insurance companies, employers, drug companies, etc. Each industry ends up pursuing its own agenda and self interests, which thwarts compromise on complex issues. And it turns out that these battles have been going on for decades with the American Medical Association, representing physicians, fighting almost every major effort at health care reform over the past 70 years.

In the current debate, these same groups are spending millions to lobby Congress and run TV advertisements to influence lawmakers, while lobbyists steadily work in the background – even as lawmakers struggle to reach consensus on health care reform legislation. It’s still yet to be determined whether a bipartisan compromise, or even agreement between the House and Senate, can be reached, and if so, if it will even pass after the August recess. But you can rest assured that the various health care stakeholders will be doing everything they can to make sure the final legislation benefits them.

The bottom line is that health care interest groups have a lot of money and plenty of influence to stall or shape legislation, and that they will fight long and hard in policy battles that affect their bottom line.

UPDATE: From ThinkProgress:

Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

When special interests attack

Oftentimes, when special interest groups attack, it’s vicious, without warning and leaves a candidate no time to respond. It comes like a ton of bricks often resulting in the defeat of the candidate unlucky enough to be the victim.

These attacks typically come from electioneering communication organizations, or ECOs – shadowy third party groups who can accept unlimited contribution amounts, usually from corporate special interests, and attack candidates just days before Election Day. The attacks are more often than not stretches of the truth if not outright lies. The weapon of choice can be political mail, TV commercials, and even attack websites.

ECOs are also called 527s because of their status given in the IRS code, meaning they don’t have to report their contributions to the state of Florida. Their donors still become public after being reported to the IRS, though this is normally well after Election Day. Thus, the power of ECOs comes from their ability to raise vast sums of corporate money and send attacks that make it hard for voters to tell who is behind them.  Estimates show that these groups spent more than $16 million in last fall’s election in Florida, but they have also played a major role over the previous few election cycles.

To really see the impact, there is no need to look further than the lawsuit recently filed by 2008 state Senate candidate Tim Ryan against an ECO innocuously named the People for a Better Florida Fund Inc. Their last minute attack on Ryan included mailers accusing him of a shady land deal where taxpayers overpaid for land his family owned. All in all, the groups spent almost $700,000, most of which came from the Florida Medical Association, running television ads and sending mailings.

It’s quite possible the mailers worked because Ryan, who said the attack is false, came in last in the three-way primary. In emails that have become part of the lawsuit, one of the consultants clearly demonstrated the intent of the attack: “Ryan is moving forward and we appear to have stalled. But that is about to change. … A few well-placed attack ads should stop him in his tracks.”

According to Ryan, the People for a Better Florida Fund Inc. lied to keep him out of the state Senate and that he is “taking this step (the lawsuit) because it’s the only way to hold these outside special interest groups accountable. (These groups) hijack the public process by spreading half-truths and sometimes just plain lies about people running for office.” The case will be the one of the first of its kind and the outcome will indeed have an impact on many Florida races in the future.

Unfortunately, it looks like shadowy groups and last minute attacks are here to stay in Florida politics. The Legislature passed a bill regulating the groups by requiring them to report donors to the state before Election Day; however, it was overturned in federal court for being unconstitutional and limiting free speech. Until reform is passed again, huge corporations and their associations will be able to secretly bank roll last minute attacks to elect the candidates that are beholden to them.

The above case is one of many, so I’ve included some other informative articles below. Let me know of other examples, as well as your thoughts, in the comments.

Move over Hillary, here’s Bundy
Miami Herald Naked Politics Blog, July 31, 2006

Experts at the attack
St. Pete Times, July 22, 2007

State agency rejects 2004 elections complaint
St. Pete Times, September 5, 2007

A dangerous campaign loophole, or healthy free speech?
St. Pete Times, July 2, 2009

Spending on political consultants in Florida skyrockets
Orlando Sentinel, July 22, 2009

Fla. Lets Stand Costly Court Ruling
The Ledger, July 26, 2009

Court documents raise questions whether state Sen. Eleanor Sobel secretly coordinated campaign
Sun-Sentinel, July 30, 2009

Eleanor Sobel’s Senate campaign linked to attack ads
Miami Herald, July 30, 2009

Hollywood ophthalmologist fought hard for Sobel’s Senate victory
Sun-Sentinel Broward Politics Blog, July 30, 2009

A stroll down minimum wage memory lane

Today, the Florida minimum wage will be raised to meet the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour – a small increase of the state minimum wage set by constitutional amendment in 2004, which faced virulent opposition. It was a hard fought battle between progressive organizations, such as ACORN and labor unions, and business groups, like the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida Retail Federation. It ultimately ended with Florida’s workers receiving an increase in their pay.

The opponents – members of the Coalition to ‘Save Florida Jobs’ – wrongly predicted that raising the minimum wage would kill thousands of jobs and have a catastrophic impact on Florida’s economy. Of course, their end of the world predictions never came true, and in fact, by 2006, studies showed that unemployment decreased after the amendment passed and wages began to increase.

Who are the folks who perpetuated mistruths and fought against fair wagers for workers? Let’s go over some of the players below.

The coalition consisted of the usual business groups who are anti-worker and anti-consumer: the Florida Restaurant Association, Florida Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business, to name a few. I’d like to zero in on a couple of the specific coalition partners.

Publix Super Markets donated $100,000 to the Coalition to Save Florida Jobs and really exemplifies how anti-worker some of the coalition partners can be. Besides fighting the minimum wage increase, Publix has been sued multiple times for race and gender discrimination, failed to properly train and protect workers resulting in numerous injuries and deaths, failed to provide healthcare to low wage employees resulting in their medical care being paid for by taxpayers, and fired employees for having union ties. Publix – where shopping used to be a pleasure.

The Florida Retail Federation was one of the major forces behind the Coalition to Save Florida Jobs. Richard McAllister, their CEO and one of the main spokespeople for campaign, adamantly opposed any increase in Florida’s minimum wage, claiming it would reduce jobs and drastically impact Florida’s economy. He even said raising the minimum wage “scares him to death.” He had to later recant these comments when it was clear that the minimum wage had a positive impact on Florida. As if being anti-worker wasn’t enough, the Florida Retail Federation was even against price gouging legislation to protect consumers after the 2004 hurricane season where gas stations and other businesses took advantage of consumers affected by the storms. The legislation passed in 2005 but was severely weakened by the FRF and other groups.

Today, we can look forward to fairer wages for Florida’s workers, but we must not forget the special interest groups who fought positive change in the past. It seems that the same anti-worker and anti-consumer organizations and businesses rear their ugly heads every legislative session and election cycle.