I’ll start with a look at the Tampa Bay U.S. congressional races, and our beginning point is the District 9 race between incumbent Republican Gus BIlirakis and Democratic challenger Bill Mitchell.

BIlirakis raised $1.3 million and spent $922,000, according to FEC campaign finance reports filed through mid-October, the latest available.

Media consultant Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm of Alexandria, Va., (the same folks who brought us those the Vern Buchanan TV ads) did Bilirakis’ television production and buying, at a total tab of nearly $172,000. EM Campaigns, Randy Enwright’s national consulting firm in Tallahassee that has strong connections into both the state GOP and Jeb!, was paid $16,000. (Enwright was political director of Fred Thompson’s slow-motion train-wreck of a presidential effort.) The The Catalyst Group RW, LLC, out of D.C. was paid $10,000 for fund raising and fundraising events.

On the direct mail side, the work went to Ponte Vedra Beach over near Jacksonville, with Sam Van Voorhis’ Majority Strategies getting $42,000 in fees and printing costs. (For those with long or conspiratorial memories, Voorhis was caught up in an investigation into kickbacks in Ohio politics, but the Department of Justice dropped the probe and no charges were filed. Some have suggested that the probe was dropped as part of partisan meddling in the Alberto Gonzalez DOJ.)

Pollster The Tarrance Group made $10,000.

Locally, Mark Proctor’s MPA Consulting out of Brandon was paid $4,000 ($1,000 a month). Sunrise Consulting of Trinity in Pasco County got $33,000 for consulting and direct mail.

Over on the Democratic side, Mitchell’s top paydays went to D.C.-based media consultant Laguens Kully Klose Partners ($14,000), pollster Momentum Analysis $22,500, Fairfax, Va.-based Media Strategies for TV advertising ($75,800), and direct mail firm The Strategy Group ($43,000).

Mitchell raised $146,000 and spent $249,000, leaving a $100,000 debt, according to FEC records.

Blair has sublet the billboard from the company that has a contract for it, North Dale Development, which is owned by developer and Blair supporter Stephen Dibbs.

Creative Loafing began calling Blair and Dibbs on Sept. 23, and, despite repeated attempts, did not receive a response from them about who had paid for the billboard. An August invoice for the billboard, obtained by CL, was sent to North Dale Development, and the billboard itself makes reference to voting for Blair in the August primary.

According to the Times:

Blair’s campaign produced a check stub showing a $2,500, first-month’s payment to CBS Outdoor, owner of the billboard. CBS also provided a computerized copy of the check, along with a copy of a mailing label from the DHL Express envelope in which it arrived.

CBS spokesman Jeremy Murphy said a company called North Dale Development has a contract to use the billboard, and that it has sublet the advertising space to Blair’s campaign. Blair has access to the billboard from the Aug. 26 to. Nov. 4, Murphy said. Those dates span the period from the primary to the general election.

“There was a letter of assignment, assigning it to the campaign,” Murphy said. “The campaign has paid for the billboard.”

The Blair campaign check has not shown up on a campaign finance report yet. Sept. 19, the date on the check, came after the deadline for the latest report. Blair told the Times it would be included on the report that is due in the mail on Friday.

–

In the aftermath of my story yesterday about Brian Blair and who is paying for his campaign billboards, several activists showed up at the Hillsborough County Commission meeting this morning, with one reading my story into the record and at least one other demanding Blair resign.

The Kevin Beckner campaign, which is challenging the Republican Blair for his county commission seat, picked up the ball from there, issuing this news release this afternoon:

BLAIR BREAKS LAW
Brian Blair violates election law- Beckner campaign calls for Blair’s resignation

TAMPA: According to a disturbing news article in the weekly newspaper Creative Loafing, it appears that Brian Blair has violated campaign finance laws by participating in an ethically and quite possibly legally challenged campaign activity.

In the news story titled, “Who is behind commissioner Brain Blair’s campaign billboards?” it is revealed that “according to an invoice… controversial and prominent developer” Stephen Dibbs actually paid for the billboard. Contradicting the invoice the billboard’s disclaimer clearly states “Paid political advertisement paid for and approved by Brian Blair, Republican, for Hillsborough County Commission District 6.”

“Throughout this campaign I have focused on the real issues we face in Hillsborough County. I have also expressed that we need real change in our county that focuses on the people and not Special Interests,” stated candidate Kevin Beckner. “This unfortunate indiscretion that my opponent is involved in not only shows a violation of the law and the public trust but is a glaring example of how connected Mr. Blair is to self interest developers.”

“It is obvious that the self interest developers who support Mr. Blair will do whatever is necessary, legal or illegal, to re-elect Mr. Blair and maintain their power and influence over county government,” stated Beckner.

According to campaign finance laws individuals are limited to a $500 maximum contribution by individuals or $500 for corporate contributions. The news article states that the cost of the billboard in question was $2,500.

“Brian Blair should be begging the voters of Hillsborough County for their forgiveness instead of their votes right now,” stated Mitch Kates campaign manager for Kevin Beckner. “Mr. Blair not only broke the law, he violated the public’s trust. If Mr. Blair had any moral courage he would not only suspend his campaign he would step down from his seat on the County Commission immediately.”

The billboard on Ehrlich Road in north Tampa touting the re-election of Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair reads, in fine print at the bottom, “Political advertisement paid for and approved by Brian Blair, Republican for Hillsborough County Commission, District 6.”

It appears, however, that his campaign did not pay for the billboard advertisement. Blair’s campaign finance reports show no such expenditure. And according to an invoice obtained by Creative Loafing, the bill for the $2,500-a-month roadway sign was sent to North Dale Development, which is owned by Stephen Dibbs, a controversial and prominent developer who has supported Blair in the past.

If Dibbs did pay for the billboard, it would appear to exceed the limits in the state campaign finance law, which caps direct or in-kind contributions to candidate campaigns at $500 and requires disclosure of any contributions.

Among Dibbs’ various holdings is the Bourbon Street Plaza shopping strip center where the billboard is located. It is not clear from the invoice whether Dibbs paid for the board. The invoice was provided to CL by a source who requested anonymity because the source was not authorized to release the document.

The invoice, from CBS Outdoor, which sells the billboard’s advertising space, was dated Aug. 20, 2008, for use of the billboard in the month of August. The 10-foot-by-36-foot sign is highly visible to anyone driving west on Ehrlich from North Dale Mabry Highway. It was still in place last week when CL visited the site.

Neither Dibbs nor Blair responded to numerous telephone and e-mailed requests for comment for this story.

Who paid for this campaign billboard on Ehrlich Road in Tampa?

Read the entire story, which is already on our website.

UPDATE: Neither Blair nor Beckner has spoken to Creative Loafing about this story, but a Tampa Tribune reporter told me Tuesday that Blair has now produced a campaign check cut to CBS Outdoor on Sept. 19 and insists he paid for all his campaign advertising himself. Blair spoke to reporters with the Trib and Times after he was criticized during Tuesday’s county commission meeting about the subject of the story.

Right now, “uncompensated Internet activity” is protected by a Federal Election Commission regulation that allows linking to campaign websites and writing about the views of federal candidates—which, without the regulation, could potentially be considered a campaign contribution or expenditure on the candidate’s behalf. Basically, blogs currently share the same protection from campaign finance restrictions as other media outlets.

The problem is that since this protection is regulatory, it can be changed without congressional action. Rep. Hensarling will introduce legislation that will create statutory blogger protections in the hopes of creating a more permanent solution for our online “pajama journalists.” Forge on, brave bloggers!

During the 2007 Tampa City Council elections, the Times‘ Brady Dennis had a great story raising questions about some suspicious campaign contributions made to candidate Julie Brown in her (unsuccessful) bid to unseat John Dingfelder, all with connections to Tampa car dealership owner Jason Kuhn. As the newspaper explained just before the March 2007 election:

A St. Petersburg Times analysis in January found that more than $20,000 of Brown’s contributions came from local car dealer Jason Kuhn, his relatives and associates at his Honda and Volkswagen dealerships.

Dingfelder had previously opposed a plan to add a used car lot to Kuhn’s business on W Kennedy Boulevard.

Kuhn said he didn’t encourage or force employees to give. And Brown said she made no promises on how she would vote.

Here’s exactly what Kuhn said during the campaign, according to the Times:

“We don’t tell our employees who to give money to,” Kuhn said, noting that many didn’t give a dime. He called them simply a “very loyal and very passionate” bunch.

Now we find out that Jason Kuhn really did funnel his own money into the campaign by asking employees to stroke personal checks and then reimbursing them from his wad o’ cash. But he will not be charged criminally because the law and the prosecutor said Kuhn 1.) is really, really sorry and 2.) didn’t know it was against the law to funnel his own cash in excess of campaign contributions limits into a city council race because of his personal dislike of the incumbent.

The Times reported this week:

“We looked at it and said, ‘He won’t do that again. He’s learned his lesson,’ ” said Wayne Chalu, supervisor of the [Hillsborough State Attorney] office’s economic crime unit.

What a steaming pile of bullshit.

In all my years of covering politics and being involved in campaigns as a political consultant, this is the most egregious example of a practice that many suspect is more widely spread than we ever prove. The only solace in this is that Brown ended up losing to Dingfelder anyway — but what role did the revelation by the Times and Dennis of this little scheme play? And what if the press hadn’t caught it? Brown could have won and Kuhn would have gotten away with political murder.

My story last year detailed how the Medicare and Medicaid provider donated $32,000 to local candidates in the 2006 election cycle, mostly Hillsborough County Commission candidates, at the same time it is trying to break into the ranks of providers who feed at the county’s lucrative indigent health care plan.

Two years earlier, it bundled up $10,000 for Commissioner Brian Blair, who is running again in 2008 and has received $2,000 so far in this campaign from four different WellCare corporations. In 2005, Blair raised the issue of opening up bidding for the indigent health care bucks but denied that it had anything to do with all the greasing he’s had from WellCare.

What is most amazing so far is that FLA, a Red State when it comes to voting [I know, I know, that's at least debatable given the voting irregularities in 2000 and 2004], has gone blue in terms of fundraising. The top two Democratic money campaigns, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have raised almost as much money as all of the GOP candidates combined.

Clinton leads in FLA fundraising with nearly $1.9 million; Obama follows at a little more than $1 million. Mitt Romney is the top Republican mone-raiser in FLA, with just under $1 million in contributions. Then comes:

McCain (R)	$993,026
Giuliani (R)	$877,700
Edwards (D)	$503,120
Richardson (D)	$194,850
Biden (D)	$147,200
Dodd (D)	$139,196
Paul (R)	$39,915
Brownback (R)	$34,394
Tancredo (R)	$8,965
Thompson (R)	$7,600
Hunter (R)	$6,350
Huckabee (R)	$5,400
Kucinich (D)	$3,250
Gravel (D)	$875

In Tampa Bay, Romney leads the money race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics:

Mitt Romney	$88,150
Hillary Clinton	$82,850
Rudolph W. Giuliani	$69,000
Barack Obama	$34,700
John McCain	$28,451
John Edwards	$22,450
Joseph R. Biden Jr.	$7,400
Ron Paul	$7,300
Sam Brownback	$2,750
Bill Richardson	$2,250
Dennis J. Kucinich	$2,000
Christopher J. Dodd	$750
Thomas J. Vilsack	$500
Duncan Hunter	$500

Mitt can thank the Semblers in Pinellas County for his front-running status here; many family members contributed the maximum and raised other dollars for him as well.

Best bet after the next reports are filed is that Hillary and Obama will continue to lead in FLA, and Edwards will start to show the difficulty he faces in keeping pace. On the Republican side, expect Romney to do very well, Giuliani to slip a little and McCain to slow considerably as many check-writers begin to sense he’s not going to have a good outcome in 2008. Fred Thompson won’t register yet; he’s not even formally announced yet and he still has plenty of time to raise a competitive war chest.

What does any of this matter for voters? Not a bit, because you should make your decision based on the person’s qualifications and issues. But for those addicted to the horse race, and the amateur strategists among us, the next campaign finance reports should indicate the

The case was brought by Wisconsin Right to Life, which wanted the right in 2004 to run ads trying to stop a Senate filibuster on judicial nominees.

The effect of the 5-4 decision was to create a hole big enough to drive a semi through in the law, and to move the state of campaign financing law closer to deregulation. It likely has supporters and critics in both parties, since the coalition that put together McCain-Feingold was a strange one, indeed.

The crackdown on union treasury spending, for instance, was a major selling point for Republicans, who for years complained that the Democratic-leaning unions were using members’ dues to finance their left-wing ads and attacks on conservative politicians — without the explicit approval of the membership paying those dues.

“We see it as a positive; we think it is a fair ruling,” said Stephen Sarnoff, the president of a Communications Workers of America local in Pinellas. “We will be able to use it to inform and educate the voters about the issues that we feel are the most important. It is a just ruling that will allow more democracy and do a better job of educating the public.”

So, is the decision good or bad? It’s tricky. First, there are the money=speech advocates, who cite free speech and say let the marketplace of ideas deal with such advertising. They say government has no role in regulating free speech, and they insist that disclosure and contribution limits are enough to rein in the power of unrestrained spending.

On the other side are those who see how badly money is corrupting the political system, who worry that unfettered spending by any and all special interests will merely muddy the waters so badly that the marketplace of ideas won’t operate properly. They believed the controls in McCain-Feingold were reasonable.

One law professor argues that this decision signals a strong anti-regulation shift for the high court. Loyola Professor Rick Hasen writes:

What’s next? Expect a full, frontal attack on McConnell [a leading current campaign finance decision], likely manufactured by Jim Bopp, as invited by Justice Alito (not to mention Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas). Within a few years, expect the Court to take another campaign contributions case, revisit Randall, and reconsider whether even higher contribution limits violate the First Amendment.

Another legal expert writes that it is a banner day for corporations, who saw a giant leap forward in their ability to impact the political process:

… [F]or the first time in 60 years establishes a constitutional regime in which corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as individuals, notwithstanding that, as the Court stressed in Austin, corporations’ “voice” in public debate is magnified considerably by virtue of numerous advantages that state law provides to such artificial entities.

The net effect is that the court has helped both the left (union politicking) and right (corporate spending) in campaigns, and left lots of uncertainty as to what will be treated as an issue ad vs. an ad advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Given the Bush Court’s apparent inclination toward deregulation of campaign finance, look for more decisions that could even loosen contribution limits.