Thurman Statement On McCollum's Frivolous Lawsuit

Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman released the following statement responding to Attorney General Bill McCollum's frivolous lawsuit against President Obama's historic health insurance reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

"Because he has no plans to move Florida forward or bring jobs to the Sunshine State, Attorney General Bill McCollum has filed a frivolous lawsuit to block President Obama's historic health insurance reform - this is just another petty partisan ploy from a Washington politician.

"Bill McCollum has spent much of the last 30 years, since he was first elected to Congress in 1980, either ignoring the growing crisis in our healthcare system or fighting against commonsense solutions to cover the four million Floridians who lack health insurance. That's why Bill McCollum repeatedly voted to cut funding for Medicare in Congress.

"The fact of the matter is, health insurance reform that ensures security for those with insurance, coverage for more than 31 million Americans currently living without health care, and lower costs for everyone has passed in both chambers of Congress and been signed by the President. The people of Florida can't afford more delays, obstruction, or political stunts-they want reform implemented now.

"If Bill McCollum wants to deny middle class families and small businesses relief from soaring insurance premiums, seniors help in paying for their prescription drugs, or sick people a way to be insured once again, that's his choice to make-but he will find himself on the wrong side of Floridians.

"But it is unacceptable for AG McCollum to once again waste taxpayer dollars for his political stunts. Rather than filing politically-motivated lawsuits, McCollum needs to stop wasting our taxpayer money and start doing his job -- like cracking down on Medicaid fraud that is costing our state billions of dollars."

REPUBLICANS, BUSINESS AND CONSUMER GROUPS ALL SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

NPR: "Hatch And Several Other Senators Who Now Oppose The So-Called Individual Mandate Actually Supported A Bill That Would Have Required It...'It Was Invented...[For] George Bush Sr. Back In The Day, As A Competition To The Employer Mandate Focus Of The Democrats At The Time.'" NPR's Julie Rovner reported: "For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills. 'Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it,' said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). 'The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty.' But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it. In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. 'It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.'" [NPR, 2/15/10]

Business And Consumer Groups All Support An Individual Mandate For Obtaining Health Care. "Support grew on Friday for insurance industry demands that all Americans be required to obtain coverage as part of a planned healthcare system overhaul, with a senior Senate Democrat and a coalition of business and consumer groups promoting the idea. ... The coalition includes groups such at the AARP, which represents older Americans, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans industry group, the healthcare advocacy group Families USA, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." [Reuters, 3/27/09]

Frist Supported Individual Mandate: "I Believe In Limited Government And Individual Responsibility...[But] It Is Time For An Individual Health Insurance Mandate." In an op-ed, former Senate Majority leader Bill Frist wrote, "I believe in limited government and individual responsibility, cherish the freedom to choose, and generally oppose individual mandates-except where markets fail, individuals suffer, and society pays a hefty price. Let's face it, in a country as productive and advanced as ours, every American deserves affordable access to healthcare delivered at the right time. And they don't have it today. It is time for an individual health insurance mandate for a minimum level of health coverage. Catastrophic coverage would be an appropriate place to start." [US News & World Report Opinion, 9/29/09]

Sen. Frist Voiced Strong Support For Individual Mandate. Former Senate Majority Leader Bill First told Time magazine that, "he strongly supports other aspects of the bill--most notably, its requirement that individuals be required to purchase coverage, if they do not receive health insurance through their employers or under government programs." [Time, 10/2/09]

Sen. Grassley: "I Believe That There is a Bipartisan Consensus to Have Individual Mandates." "'Individual mandates are more apt to be accepted by a vast majority of people in Congress than an employer mandate would be, as an example,' Grassley said. 'I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.'" [Bloomberg, 6/14/09]

CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS SAY THAT INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD CERTAINLY UPHOLD IT

Yale Law School Constitutional Scholar: "The Supreme Court Will Almost Certainly Uphold The [Individual Mandate]...To Strike Down The Individual Mandate, It Would Have To Reject Decades Of Precedents. It Is Very Unlikely [That The Court Would Stage] Such A Constitutional Revolution." Jack M. Balkin, J.D., Ph.D., Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment of the Yale Law School wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The individual mandate taxes people who do not buy health insurance. Critics charge that these people are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means...Moreover, like people who substitute homegrown marijuana or wheat for purchased crops, the cumulative effect of uninsured people's behavior undermines Congress's regulation - in this case, its regulation of health insurance markets. Because Congress believes that national health care reform won't succeed unless these people are brought into national risk pools, it can regulate their activities in order to make its general regulation of health insurance effective. One final argument against the individual mandate is that it violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing the government to take property without just compensation. 'Takings' occur when the government seizes property from particular individuals...The individual mandate is just such a tax - not a taking. Although opponents will challenge the individual mandate in court, constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law. To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current Court for staging such a constitutional revolution." [New England Journal of Medicine, 1/14/10]

Stuart Taylor: Most Experts Agree That The Individual Mandate Is Constitutional. "A healthy 20-something might ask: Can the government really order me to spend more than $5,500 a year to buy comprehensive health insurance just because I live in the United States, even though the most I might need or want is catastrophic coverage costing less than $800? Can they really force me to pay a big penalty 'tax' if I won't buy government-approved insurance? And can they use my money to subsidize people who are twice my age, and obese or sick, even if they have more money than I do? The answers are yes, yes, and that's the point! according to most of the experts who have weighed in on whether the Supreme Court would uphold a mandate for individuals to buy comprehensive health insurance unless they're already covered by employer-based plans. They cite the justices' very broad reading since the New Deal of Congress's powers to regulate interstate commerce and to tax and spend." [Stuart Taylor, National Journal, 12/12/09]

David Frum: Health Reform Is "Unquestionably Constitutional. The Federal Government Already Requires Every American To Purchase Health Insurance. That's What Medicare Does." David Frum wrote: "Is the Obama-Reid health reform plan unconstitutional? The answer to that should be obvious: the Reid-Obama plan may be unwise, unsound, and unaffordable ... but it is unquestionably constitutional. The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That's what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65. I don't hear anyone in Congress suggesting that Medicare violates the Constitution. So how can the new plan be unconstitutional if the old plan is OK?" [David Frum, 12/26/09]

Prof. Schwinn Of U. Chicago: "Whatever The Merits Of The Policy Arguments Against An Individual Mandate, These Commerce Clause Arguments...Do Not Render Them Unconstitutional." Steven D. Schwinn, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School examined claims that health reform and in particular individual mandates would be unconstitutional: "Whatever the merits of the policy arguments against an individual mandate, these Commerce Clause arguments based on 'state sovereignty' and lack of economic activity do not render them unconstitutional." [Constitutional Law Prof. Blog, 12/4/09]

Prof. Mark Hall: Unconstitutional Argument "Is Unconvincing And Deeply Flawed...There Is No Fundamental Right To Be Uninsured, And So Various Arguments Based On The Bill Of Rights Fall Flat." Mark A. Hall wrote on the Seton Hall University School of Law, Health Law & Policy Program blog: "Is it unconstitutional to mandate health insurance? It seems unprecedented to require citizens to purchase insurance simply because they live in the U.S. (rather than as a condition of driving a car or owning a business, for instance). Therefore, several credentialed, conservative lawyers think that compulsory health insurance is unconstitutional. See here and here and here. Their reasoning is unconvincing and deeply flawed...Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when 'fundamental rights' are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat." [Seton Hall University School of Law, Health Law & Policy Program, 8/25/09]

Prof. Hall's Georgetown University Paper: "The Constitution Permits Congress To Legislate A Health Insurance Mandate." Prof. Mark Hall concluded in his paper published by the Georgetown University O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law: "The Constitution permits Congress to legislate a health insurance mandate. Congress can use its Commerce Clause power or its taxing and spending powers to create such a mandate. Congress can impose a tax on those that do not purchase insurance, or provide tax benefits to those that do purchase insurance." [Georgetown University paper: The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance, February, 2009]

Prof. Dorf Of Cornell University Law School On Individual Mandate: No Different Than Federal Mandate To Compel Citizens To Jury Duty, No Different From States Imposing An "Affirmative Obligation" On Parents To Educate Their Children. "The CBO memo claims, then, that an individual mandate would be unique because it would impose an affirmative obligation on persons. Most laws either forbid some form of conduct (say, bank robbery) or impose restrictions as conditions on activities that the government could forbid altogether (say, by requiring that companies that are engaged in various lines of business comply with environmental laws, or that professionals pass licensing examinations). As the CBO memo states: 'Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare.' The only one that the CBO staff could think of was the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System...To begin, the CBO memo's authors apparently forgot about jury duty. A federal statute that was already in effect in 1994 provides that 'all citizens shall have . . . an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.'...Consider that every state imposes an affirmative obligation on parents to educate their children--whether in public school, private school, or via home schooling. Surely this obligation cannot be said to be a mere condition on the privilege of raising children, for the state has no authority to prevent people from becoming parents." [FindLaw, 10/21/09]

Prof. Dorf Of Cornell University Law School: "The Individual Mandate Is...Constitutional." Professor Michael Dorf of the Cornell University Law School wrote: "the individual mandate is 'plainly adapted' to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional." [FindLaw, 11/2/09]

Prof. Shapiro Of Emory University School Of Law: "Whatever One Thinks Of The Wisdom Of The Individual Mandate...It Would Be Surprising If The Constitution Prohibited A Democratic Resolution Of The Issue. Happily, It Does Not." Sen. Max Baucus noted that: "Robert Shapiro, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, stated: 'Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the individual mandate, or of health care reform generally, it would be surprising if the Constitution prohibited a democratic resolution of the issue. Happily, it does not.'" [Statement by Sen. Baucus, 12/22/09]

Constitutional Law Prof. Schwinn: Claim That Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional Is "Wrong...An Individual Mandate Is Almost Certainly The Kind Of Economic Activity That The [Supreme] Court Would Uphold Under Congress's Commerce Clause Authority." Prof. Steven D. Schwinn of the University of Chicago Law School critiqued an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by David Rivkin and Lee Casey arguing that the individual mandate provision was unconstitutional: "The authors are wrong on two counts. First, an individual mandate is almost certainly the kind of economic activity that the Court would uphold under Congress's Commerce Clause authority under Raich, Lopez, and United States v. Morrison. These cases allow Congress to regulate activities that have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, and they look to the commercial nature of the activity and to the connection between the activity and interstate commerce (among other considerations). An individual mandate is almost surely commercial in nature--in requiring folks to buy health insurance, it requires a commercial exchange. Rivkin and Casey argue that the mandate is not commercial in nature, because it's triggered simply by 'being an American.' This may be true, but it misses the point of the regulation: It requires Americans to engage in a commercial exchange. This is the definition of commerce...The Supreme Court may be on a path to limiting congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, the Taxing Clause, or any clause. But even so, the individual mandate all too squarely falls within the recent and settled jurisprudence." [Constitutional Law Prof. Blog, 9/25/09]

Prof. Mark Hall Of Wake Forest University School Of Law: There Are No Plausible Tenth Amendment Or States' Rights Issues Arising From the Imposition By Congress Of An Individual Responsibility To Maintain Health Coverage." Sen. Baucus said in a statement: "I refer my colleagues to an article by Mark Hall, law professor at Wake Forest University. Professor Hall's article is a comprehensive, peer-reviewed analysis of the constitutionality of a Federal individual responsibility requirement. In it, Professor Hall concludes that there are no plausible Tenth Amendment or States' rights issues arising from the imposition by Congress of an individual responsibility to maintain health coverage. Professor Hall notes further that health care and health insurance both affect and are distributed through interstate commerce. And that gives Congress the power to legislate a coverage requirement using its Commerce Clause powers. Professor Hall notes that the Supreme Court indicated in its decisions in United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez - two other cases relied on by the other side - that the non-economic, criminal nature of the conduct in those cases was central to the court's decisions in those cases that the Government had not appropriately exercised power under the Commerce Clause. Health insurance, on the other hand, does not deal with criminal conduct." Prof. Mark Hall wrote, "[p]erusing some of [the Senate health reform bill's] 2000 pages, I came across the following, SEC. 1501 (p. 320), which should put to rest any argument that an individual mandate exceeds Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause." [Statement by Sen. Baucus, 12/22/09; O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, 11/24/09]

A Business Plan or A Record of Killing Business?

From FDP:

Still without a business plan for Florida, Congressman Bill McCollum continues to deny his role in the current economic crisis, forcing Floridians to wonder if he'd bring the same failed economic policies to the Governor's Office that he pushed through Congress.

"Congressman Bill McCollum stands behind the laws he pushed through Congress that have been widely acknowledged as a determining factor in the economic collapse, which has cost jobs right here in Florida - creating a tied record high unemployment," Florida Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff said. "If Bill McCollum can't even see the error in his economic ways that cost countless Florida jobs, it's clear that he won't be able to move our economy forward if elected Governor, especially since he hasn't even bothered to produce an economic plan or vision."

As Governor McCollum Would Likely Turn Florida's Economy Into A "Permanent Bust":

In Congress McCollum Helped Turn Our "Lemonade Into A Lemon". "In Congress, McCollum helped turn our lemonade economy into a lemon. In 1999, he co-sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented banks from taking on riskier investments that could precipitate the very financial crisis Obama inherited. ... As governor, McCollum would likely turn Florida's economy into a permanent bust." (Column, Sun-Sentinel, 01/15/10)

McCollum Falsely Denied His Record Even As John McCain Called Him Out:

Former Congressman Bill McCollum Defended Cosponsoring and Pushing the Wall Street Deregulation Through Congress. "McCollum says the banker-friendly policies he backed on [the] banking and housing committee in congress contributed in no way to the economic collapse." (St. Petersburg Times/TampaBay.com, The Buzz Political Blog, 12/16/09)

John McCain Supported Rolling Back McCollum's Wall Street Deregulation. "'I don't believe when I was there that we created the foundation in those years for the problems that came after I left in 2000,' he [McCollum] said. ... But on Wednesday, Republican Sen. John McCain proposed reining in Wall Street by resurrecting the Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking - the same law McCollum favored repealing as a congressman in 1999. ... As a member of Congress from 1980 to 2000, McCollum served on the committee overseeing financial services and co-sponsored 1999 legislation that tore down the Depression-era firewall between investment banks and commercial banks." (St. Petersburg Times, 12/17/09)

From the Blogs

The latest stories from the Florida blogs (and beyond) about Republicans in the Florida Cabinet.

The Reid Report: Meet Bill McCollum’s healthcare lawsuit buddy: birther queen Orly Taitz

The Reid Report: Repeal is the new litmus test, and McCollum’s cynical ploy

Progress Florida: McCollum Rolls Dice On Medicare & Social Security

FLA Politics: Bill McCollum's Passion

The Reid Report: Bill McCollum’s shady, costly healthcare suit

Bark Bark Woof Woof: When Opportunists Knock

The Reid Report: McCollum’s useless suit to stop healthcare reform, a history

Progress Florida: Bill McCollum Wants To Deny 4 Million Floridians Health Insurance

The Reid Report: McCollum’s folly: Florida Republicans will try and secede from healthcare reform

The Reid Report: Bill McCollum to self-immolate in response to healthcare reform

The Reid Report: Bill McCollum is wasting your time

FLA Politics: How Slimy Is Jeff Atwater?

Progress Florida: Bill McCollum: Solving Florida's Problems One Sentence At A Time

The Reid Report: Timing is everything: Sink pushes for ethics reform

FLA Politics: Has Crist Already Switched Parties?

The Reid Report: Charlie’s Funny Valentine

The New Argument: Bill McCollum: M.I.A. on RPOF

The New Argument: Will Cronyism Take Down Charlie Crist?

Change in Tallahassee: Will McCollum Condone or Condemn Cronyism With Campaign Cash At Stake?

Why Now?: Like I Said

Floridians Have Clear Choice in Governor's Race: Business Plan or Business As Usual

From FDP:

As Florida CFO Alex Sink was rolling out her Business Plan for Florida last week, her Republican Gubernatorial rival Bill McCollum was focused on Washington politics, and absent on the main issues at stake in Florida: the economy and jobs.

"While former Congressman Bill McCollum grandstands on the happenings of Washington, where is his plan for Florida's economy? Where are his ideas to cut wasteful spending in state government? Floridians face a fundamental choice in what they want from their next Governor: a business plan for Florida or more business-as-usual politics." Florida Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff said. "Florida's unemployment rate has tied a record high. Our state faces massive budget shortfalls and foreclosures have skyrocketed. And where is the leading Republican candidate for Governor, Bill McCollum? His focus is still stuck on playing Washington political games, since that's what he's done for decades."

McCollum has spent the last week on phone conferences, writing and sending letters to Attorneys General in each state and appearing on national cable news, yet McCollum has yet to offer an economic plan for Florida.

Where Is Bill McCollum's Economic Plan? When Will He Produce One?

To understand the fundamental choice Florida voters will face in November, just survey last week's news on the gubernatorial race.

Alex Sink Roles Out Business Plan for Florida:

"And as a candidate for governor, she [Alex Sink] has released a promising, cost-cutting plan to get rid of middle managers in state government. She also is laying out a set of proposals to stimulate job creation in Florida. So far, these generally concern tax credits and tax breaks targeting businesses. This is what I want my governor to do - not get embroiled in some lawsuit against Washington over health care to get headlines." (Mike Thomas Blog, Orlando Sentinel, 3/18/10)

Sink sets economic goals if elected Fla. Governor
(Headline, Associated Press, 3/16/10)

'Business-minded' Dem Sink unveils jobs, economy proposals in West Palm Beach
(Headline, Palm Beach Post, 3/17/10)

Alex Sink offers up economic blueprint for Florida
(Headline, Orlando Sentinel, 3/17/10)

In governor's race, Alex Sink pins hopes on economic savvy, new 'business plan for Florida'(Headline, Venture, TampaBay.com, 3/17/10)

Former Congressman Bill McCollum Promises Business-As-Usual Politics of Washington:

McCollum "Grandstands" On Health Reform Plan. "Bill McCollum very much wants to run against Barack Obama in November. That appears to be a large part of his campaign strategy as he grandstands on Obama's health care plan and tries to tie it to Democrat Alex Sink. This resulted in a rather juvenile letter from McCollum's campaign manager to Sink, demanding she take a position on it." (Mike Thomas Blog, Orlando Sentinel, 3/18/10)

McCollum Declined To Comment About Conference Call With Top Prosecutors From Across The Country About Possible Legal Action Against The Health Reform Bill. According to McClatchy News, "South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum spoke with other top state prosecutors Thursday in a conference call about possible legal action. McMaster said the proposed federal mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance - or face a fine of as much as $750 for most people - is unconstitutional. 'It is my belief and that of other attorneys general that this is clearly unconstitutional,' he told McClatchy. 'That's why we're moving forward. We need to protect the sovereignty of our states and the liberty of our people.' McCollum declined to comment." (McClatchy News, 03/20/10)

While McCollum Failed To Provide Promised Details Of His Legal Challenge To The Press, He Was "On Conference Calls All Day" Trying To "Get Other AGs On Board To File Suit" Against Health Care Bill. According to McClatchy News, "Ryan Wiggins, a spokeswoman, said McCollum was spending considerable time on the phone with other state prosecutors, rounding up support for a lawsuit. 'He's been trying to get other AGs on board to file suit,' Wiggins said. 'He's been on conference calls all day trying to do this lawsuit.'" In addition, "Wiggins didn't follow through on a promise to provide details of the potential legal challenge." (McClatchy News, 03/20/10 and 03/19/10)

McCollum Planned To "Sue Regardless" Over Provisions Removed From Health Reform Legislation. "Attorneys General Henry McMaster of South Carolina -- who is head of a group of 19 GOP attorneys general that started threatening lawsuits in December -- and Bill McCollum of Florida said ... that they are planning legal action over a deal struck between Senate leadership and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) paying for his state's share for expanded Medicaid coverage, estimated at $100 million. Democrats intend to remove the Nebraska provision from the Senate bill via reconciliation, but McMaster said ... that he and McCollum intend to sue regardless of whether the item is removed." (Politico, 03/19/10)

Atwater's Hypocrisy

From Loranne Ausley:

“Do as I tweet, not as I do.”

That was the headline of the Florida Times Union in response to Senate President Jeff Atwater’s hypocritical statements last month.

In a “tweet”, Atwater criticized federal lawmakers for not balancing their budget while claiming he has done a great job balancing Florida’s budget.

Not to be outdone, the Orlando Sentinel chimed in adding, “Florida Lawmakers want Washington to cut deficit spending – just not in Florida.”

The reference is of course to the fact that the only way Atwater can “balance” the state budget is to depend on those same borrowed dollars.

Last year, Atwater used $5 billion in borrowed federal dollars to balance Florida’s budget…and this year his so-called leadership will call for borrowing an additional $4 billion.

Atwater and his cohorts TAKE the money, and then they rail against the very money they desperately need to make ends meet in Florida. This is exactly the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy that Floridians are tired of.

True transparency…true accountability…and true responsibility means standing up for taxpayers, telling them the truth, and being an honest steward of their tax dollars.

That’s exactly what we need in our next CFO – someone who is honest about our economic conditions, forthright about what it will take to make our state stronger and consistent in talking to Florida’s citizens.

If you too are tired of this two-faced hypocrisy, then join us today.

If you want your next CFO to tell it like it is, then click here.

My pledge to you is to always be straight with you, to be your voice, and to tell you the truth, even when it’s not the popular thing to do.

Sincerely,

Loranne Ausley

Where's Bill McCollum When Tough Economic Times Call For Tough Leaders?

From FDP:

Tough economic times call for tough leaders. But when leadership on the bread-and-butter issue of job growth and job creation has arisen, Bill McCollum has failed Florida.

More than 300,000 Floridians have lost their jobs. The state faces a record-high 11.9 percent unemployment rate. Over 600,000 home foreclosures have beset the Sunshine State. Florida faces a $3.2 billion budget shortfall. And what's Bill McCollum's answer to the economic crisis facing Florida?
Answer: Nothing.

Former Congressman Bill McCollum epitomizes a "career politician" and nothing more than "the status quo." McCollum has yet to propose "a single budget-cutting or job-creating idea," even as his gubernatorial rival Alex Sink announces her business plan for Florida. (Orlando Sentinel, 02/19/10; Editorial, Orlando Sentinel, 01/31/10)

"Tough economic times call for tough leadership. But where's Bill McCollum?" Florida Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff asked. "Florida can't afford another Washington politician like Bill McCollum. He loves to spend your money but won't help foster the growth of good jobs to help you earn it."

In fact, McCollum helped "turn our lemonade economy into lemon," dangerously pushing the deregulation of the financial industry that led to the economic meltdown. Now, he wants to be governor, in which capacity he'd likely turn Florida's economy into a "permanent bust." (Column, Sun-Sentinel, 01/15/10)

"The race for governor sets a clear choice for the people of our state: a leader that offers a clear vision and business plan for Florida, or a Washington politician offering more of the same," Jotkoff added.

BACKGROUND:

McCollum Epitomizes A "Career Politician" and the "Status Quo". Republicans "should give serious thought to how badly they want to hold on to the governor's mansion. If they do, they may want to rethink their decision to pin all their chances on two-time loser Bill McCollum. This is, after all, a time when residents are sick of the status quo, career politicians and toe-the-line partisanship. McCollum epitomizes all three." (Orlando Sentinel, 02/19/10)

Orlando Sentinel: McCollum Has Yet To Propose "A Single Budget-Cutting Or Job-Creating Idea". A column in the Orlando Sentinel opined: "The Republican running, Attorney General Bill McCollum, has been seizing on big, national issues that the Governor's Office has little direct involvement in - primarily, the national health-care debate - and lambasting Democratic positions on them." And, "McCollum hasn't yet proposed a single budget-cutting or job-creating idea, focusing instead on his virulent opposition to the Democrats' health-care expansion." (Editorial, Orlando Sentinel, 01/31/10)

Sun-Sentinel: In Congress McCollum Helped Turn Our "Lemonade Into A Lemon"-As Governor McCollum Would Likely Turn Florida's Economy Into A "Permanent Bust". "In Congress, McCollum helped turn our lemonade economy into a lemon. In 1999, he co-sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented banks from taking on riskier investments that could precipitate the very financial crisis Obama inherited. According to the St. Petersburg Times, 'After he left Congress, McCollum lobbied for the Mortgage Bankers Association of America and for a nonprofit with a down payment assistance program that was later outlawed by Congress after the Internal Revenue Service dubbed it a 'scam.'' As governor, McCollum would likely turn Florida's economy into a permanent bust." (Column, Sun-Sentinel, 01/15/10)

Bill McCollum is "...So lacking In Perspective, So Caught Up In The Washington Beltway Lifestyle That He Has Forgotten The Reality Of America." "At a time of a huge budget deficit, at a time when Congress and the president are laying billions of new taxes on the American people in the name of deficit reduction, Mr. McCollum voted to raise his salary from $89,000 to $125,000," wrote Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese in 1990. "When I asked him why, he said he was just unwilling to sacrifice the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed. Well, I appreciate his candor, and I hope he appreciates mine. I am just unwilling to vote for a man who is so lacking in perspective, so caught up in the Washington Beltway lifestyle that he has forgotten the reality of America." (Orlando Sentinel, 11/04/90)

Bill McCollum Stays in the Shadows During Sunshine Week

From FDP:

Florida's chief officer of enforcing open sunshine laws, Bill McCollum, was noticeably absent at today's annual Sunshine Appreciation Lunch in Tallahassee, sponsored by the First Amendment Foundation. But this is no surprise given Bill McCollum's record.

"Why is Bill McCollum so scared of putting some sunshine in these dark corners? Good things never come out of shady places," Florida Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff said. "Bill McCollum doesn't walk-the-walk and today he did not even talk-the-talk when it comes to transparency in government. Where was the officer in charge of enforcing Florida's open government laws?"

Last year, the Palm Beach Post suggested that McCollum might be "stonewalling" when his office told reporters they would have to pay $770 for copies of his public schedule, and added that the request "would take at least a week to purge secret information before the file could be viewed."

At the time, First Amendment Foundation attorney Florence Snyder called McCollum's attempts to hide his schedule "transparent nonsense." Snyder said "This is the officer in charge of enforcing Florida's open government laws. That sort of speaks to itself to the seriousness in which Gen. McCollum's staff takes transparency."

Bill McCollum's office also slowed down efforts by the Florida Democratic Party to get the truth about his no-bid contract to his political consultant for his TV ads paid for with state funds. Only after a letter was sent requesting more information, and specifically citing the public records statutes his office is supposed to enforce, were additional documents turned over by Attorney General McCollum.

McCollum also has a long history of trying to hold himself and his fellow politicians less accountable, including voting to make it harder for ethics complaints to be filed against elected officials.

BACKGROUND:

McCollum First Tried to Charge A "Hefty Fee" To View His Schedule. "Viewing McCollum's complete schedule since he took office in January 2007 would cost $770, including a down payment of $500, McCollum's staff initially said this week in response to a public records request for the schedule. The staff also said it would take at least a week to purge secret information before the file could be viewed. Asked why the office that oversees the state's Sunshine Laws imposes such a hefty fee for records that are in the public domain, spokeswoman Ryan Wiggins said: 'For security reasons.'" [Palm Beach Post, 06/26/09]

Palm Beach Post: "Sounds More Like Stonewalling" From "The Guy Who Is In Charge Of Seeing That Public Officials Comply With Florida's Open Records Law." "One big difference between Ms. Sink and Mr. McCollum ... is that when The Post requested copies of her official calendars since she took office in January 2007, Ms. Sink responded within an hour - completely and at no charge. Mr. McCollum's office told The Post that it would take at least a week to provide the information about his schedule from the beginning of 2007, and that it would cost $770. This from the guy who is in charge of seeing that public officials comply with Florida's open records laws. ... Why would it cost so much and take so long to get Mr. McCollum's complete schedule? 'For security reasons,' a spokesman said. That sounds more like stonewalling." [Editorial, Palm Beach Post, 06/30/09]

McCollum Failed to Turn Over All Public Records On His No-Bid Ad Contract to the Florida Democratic Party. After criticism of McCollum's no-bid ad contract to his political consultant the Florida Democratic Party requested all records pertaining to the ad contract. After receiving only a small amount of the records requested, the FDP wrote the Attorney General "Pursuant to Florida's Sunshine Laws (Florida Statute 119.011), I expect that you will promptly correct your incomplete disclosures by providing digital copies of any and all documents, emails, communications and other related records which detail the creation and crafting of this ad campaign." Following this letter, more documents were turned over. [Letter to Attorney General McCollum, 3/23/09]

McCollum Voted To Make It Harder to File Ethics Complaint Against Legislators. In 1997, McCollum voted to adopt "new rules that make it more difficult for outsiders to bring ethics complaints against lawmakers, and easier for lawmakers to dismiss complaints that are brought. Critics of the new rules charged that they increase the likelihood that serious misconduct will not be investigated and violators will go unpunished." [Vote 413, 9/18/97; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 9/19/97; New York Times, 9/19/97]