IMPORTANT: another report why Adam Putnam DOES NOT DESERVE your vote ... by gimleteye

It only took serial algae blooms around the state, containing Cyanobacteria that can cause long-term brain damage, to wake up Floridians about who the Florida Legislature, Gov, Rick Scott and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam really work for: Big Sugar.

Florida voters became immune to Big Sugar's influence on local and state politics -- it needs to organize the political ladder because rules and regulations can harm its profits. But the outbreak of dangerous, harmful algae for the third time in five years really rankled Floridians.

Big Sugar's candidate for governor is Adam Putnam, a Republican who has been cultivated by the industry as carefully as it tends its cane crop. (For our archive on Adam Putnam, click here.)

Remarkably, political money from Big Sugar has become toxic in this campaign cycle for the first time ever. All of the leading Democratic candidates for Governor and many Congressional candidates, including some Republicans, have signed the Bullsugar.org questionnaire pledging that they will not take Big Sugar money. That's a first, and for that, credit Bullsugar.org (if you would like to contribute to the organization, now is a very good time to do it!)

For reasons why, read this excellent report in the Tampa Bay Times.

This candidate for Florida governor is the only one taking money from Big Sugar
BY CRAIG PITTMAN
Tampa Bay Times

August 06, 2018 08:31 AM
Updated 6 hours 55 minutes ago


Florida politicians from both parties used to have a sweet tooth for campaign contributions from the state’s powerful sugar industry.

But now that Big Sugar is getting blamed for toxic algae blooms, a connection to the industry has turned into a political liability. This campaign season, only one person running for governor is still taking sugar’s money: Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam.

So far sugar companies and their affiliates have given Putnam’s campaign and his Florida Grown PAC $804,000 in direct contributions, a reward for a reliable ally. He’s also received $7.6 million from five political action committees that receive a significant portion of their contributions from the industry, or one out of every five dollars he has raised.

Putnam also is the only gubernatorial candidate defending the sugar companies from accusations that they deserve some or all of the blame for the pollution-fueled algae blooms mucking up Lake Okeechobee and threatening to ruin beach communities on both coasts.

“I support our Glades communities,” he said during an April television interview with WPTV in West Palm Beach, speaking of the areas around the Everglades where sugarcane is grown. “I support giving them the opportunities to have good jobs ... And I think they’re a viable, vibrant part of our economy, and the water that leaves sugar farms is cleaner than the water that comes on to them.”

He said the challenges facing Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades and the coastline go beyond sugar and include everyone who has moved to a state once covered by wetlands. It’s not as simple as taking out “the bad guys,” he said.

Putnam’s GOP rival, Ron DeSantis, and all five leading Democratic candidates have been painting the sugar companies as corporate greed heads who don’t care what damage they do to the rest of Florida. DeSantis, a congressman unpopular with sugar companies since he voted against giving them federal price supports, told the GOP Sunshine Summit in June that Putnam and Big Sugar are “tied at the hip.”

For once, environmental groups are on the same side as DeSantis, even though he was endorsed by President Trump, whom they dislike. Kim Mitchell, executive director of the Everglades Trust, has dubbed the agriculture commissioner “Pay-to-Play Putnam.”

Putnam’s campaign spokeswoman couldn’t explain why he’s still taking sugar money at a time when the industry is so unpopular. Instead, Meredith Beatrice pointed out that some other candidates took sugar contributions in prior campaigns, then stopped.

Now, she said, the other candidates “are fueled by out-of-state special interests.” Beatrice said Putnam is “the only candidate who isn’t controlled by the Washington swamp.”

Republican lobbyist and campaign consultant Towson Fraser said he didn’t think Putnam’s ties to sugar would hurt him in the long run because so many people who work in agriculture will still vote for him. Meanwhile, Ben Wilcox of the government watchdog group Integrity Florida said he’s glad to see so much attention being paid to who’s financing the candidates.

“So much cash flows into these campaigns that we need to hold people accountable for who their funders are,” said Wilcox. He said politicians ought to be like NASCAR drivers who emblazon the names of their sponsors on their cars.

The big question, Wilcox said, is what Big Sugar expects from Putnam in return. No one from either U.S. Sugar or Florida Crystals, the state’s biggest sugar companies, responded to numerous calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Putnam grew up in the Central Florida town of Bartow, known for cultivating citrus and producing cattle — not sugar. State records show he began taking money from the sugar industry as far back as 1996. That’s the year he was first elected to the Florida House of Representatives at age 22, becoming the youngest legislator in state history.

He continued accepting contributions from sugar during his 10 years in Congress, and through his election as state agriculture commissioner in 2010 and subsequent re-election four years ago. Throughout his long career in office, he has consistently supported the same positions as the sugar companies:

The Republican Race For Governor, Rick Scott, and Donald Trump ... by gimleteye

The online blog -- Florida Politics -- has coyly tracked Big Sugar's talking points in the past. Peter Schorsch, publisher and founder of Florida Politics, wrote yesterday from an insiders' perspective of a weekend meeting in Orlando, "At confab, Adam Putnam supporters asked to raise more money, game out Trump involvement." We offer the following comments as "outsiders".

"... If the election for Florida governor was to be decided by the candidates taking a pop-quiz about the Sunshine State’s history, people, and geography, it’s very likely Putnam would not only win, he might just ace the test...

Unfortunately for Putnam, whichever candidate can give the best directions through Florida’s agriculture belt is not how the Republican nominee for Governor will be decided. Instead, it will be fought in the dens of of Florida television viewers who seemingly must make a choice between the candidate they see on all the commercials on Fox News (Putnam) and the candidate they actually see on Fox News (Ron DeSantis)."

So far, so good. Putnam, the favored choice of Florida polluters and industry associations, has raised a fearsome amount of corporate campaign cash, with direct contributions heavily spike by dark money pools. DeSantis, a Congressman from North Florida, has emerged as one of Trump's fiercest defenders in the House and, for that -- at least so far as we know -- earned Trump's early endorsement. So Putnam buys the commercials on Fox. And Fox pundits fluff DeSantis for the networks' intractable and unpersuadable viewers.

It is verboten within Putnam’s circle of influence to describe the Polk County Republican’s gubernatorial campaign as the 2.0 version of Jeb Bush’s failed bid for The White House. This circle is the rear guard of Florida’s establishment, which has been forced to kowtow for the last seven-and-a-half years to Rick Scott and saw its hopes of invading Washington D.C. flummoxed by Donald Trump‘s filleting of not just Bush, but Florida’s other favorite son, Marco Rubio.

Here, Schorch's analysis skews off-track. The forces behind Putnam are not the "rear-guard of Florida's establishment". They are the front line and are not only well-known as such, they advertise their political muscle with swinging cudgels whenever and wherever it suits their interests. Since Citizens United, their actions have been mainly served by superPAC's and other dark money channels. But that's not "rear-guard". That's what the GOP calls "mainstream".

The notion, moreover, that these major forces in Florida have been "forced to kowtow for the last seven-and-a-half years to Rick Scott" and Trump's "filleting of not just Bush ... but Marco Rubio" is plain wrong. In fact, Rick Scott has done an expert job of recruiting Florida's Republican establishment to his side, accommodating their interests even more neatly than either Bush, when he was governor, or Rubio, when he was a state legislator.

So why paint the picture of special interests as "flummoxed"? Here is a good guess: it plays right into Scott's campaign to defeat Bill Nelson for US Senate.

Schorch's: "In 2018, the establishment — scarred by a decade of political water-treading, but flush with a booming influence economy — is determined not to let another interloper defy its well-laid plans" is plain ridiculous. Political water-treading? Polluters and industry associations and well-funded political action committees have NEVER been as anchored and secure as they are today in Florida.

There has never been a question that Adam Putnam was carefully cultivated to be the Republican candidate for governor. It's happening the same way for Representative Matt Caldwell, who is now running for Putnam's job as Agriculture Secretary. Caldwell, an accountant in Lee County, lives in an area heavily afflicted by pollution from Big Sugar. Seven years ago, he was assigned by Big Sugar to "take down" a local county commissioner, Ray Judah, who had been the lone Republican voice in Florida politics to call for Big Sugar to shoulder the costs of cleaning up Florida's badly damaged rivers and estuaries. US Sugar Corporation funneled nearly $1 million into the campaign against Judah, and after its victory, Caldwell was promoted to do heavier lifting for Big Sugar in the state legislature. He was a primary driver behind efforts to turn the 2017 Everglades Reservoir Plan into Big Sugar's Trojan Horse. Now, he has been lined up for political advancement.

The same happened with Putnam. As a Congressman, Putnam vehemently opposed the effort by the US EPA to impose limits on nitrogen and phosphorous standards in Florida to protect the state's badly damaged fresh water resources. He opposed the Crist plan to buy US Sugar lands -- as did Gov. Scott -- a deal that could have helped to mitigate the agony of the planned massive reservoir, to cost taxpayers at least $2 billion. As a cabinet member, Putnam supported outrageous lease extensions of public lands to Big Sugar; another measure that solidified Big Sugar's chokehold on Floridians. So, yes: "The plan for Adam Putnam to eventually occupy the Governor’s Mansion began long before Trump and long before Scott. In fact, it was before Putnam was elected Agriculture Commissioner that a small group of key advisers began to meet in Boca Grande to plot out the then-Congressman’s path to the Governor’s Office."

From Schorch's report, it is clear that Putnam supporters want this story line to reach the White House.

Among those in attendance were Former House Speakers Dean Cannon, Steve Crisafulli and Will Weatherford, former Senate President Mike Haridopolos, Disney lobbyist Adam Babington, Miami real estate developer Rodney Barretto, Ballard Partners’ Brad Burleson, U.S. Sugar executive Robert Coker, The Rubin Group’s Chris Finkbeiner, Florida Chamber board member Sonya Deen Hartley, Smith Bryan & Myers’ Jeff Hartley, Anheuser-Busch exec Jose Gonzalez, Publix’s Clayton and Beverly Hollis, Greenberg Traurig lobbyist Fred Karlinsky, insurance lobbyist Robert Hawken, Justice Reform Institute president William Large, lobbyist and former state Rep. Seth McKeel, Comcast government affairs VP Brian Musselwhite, Mosaic government affairs VP Eileen Stuart, and AT&T Florida president Joe York.

Schorsch continues to expound on the storyline:

If there was one defining takeaway several of the Putnam supporters wanted to share it is that they are surprised by DeSantis’ less-than-spectacular fundraising efforts.

“It doesn’t look like the cavalry is coming,” said one lobbyist supporting Putnam.

In April, DeSantis political committee raised less than $500,000. What the Ponte Vedra Republican raised in hard dollars during April won’t be known until later this week. Whatever it is, he will have not kept pace with Putnam, whose Florida Grown political committee had another $2 million month in April. Overall, Putnam has raised $28.88 million between his campaign and committee.

Although Schorsch gives a DeSantis spokesperson the benefit of comment, it is clear that the purpose of the article is to attract to the audience of one: Donald Trump.

"... if he (Putnam) is to win — and fulfill the ambitions of his dedicated supporters — it would appear that Putnam’s best bet is not to raise more money or expound on the history of Florida, but to make sure the only place Donald Trump visits in Florida is his home at Mar-a-Lago."

That's probably a message that Gov. Rick Scott is also carrying to conversations with President Trump. As a US Senator, Rick Scott can be of more help to Trump than Ron DeSantis. And the Republican campaign fat cats will be more inclined to support Trump in 2020 than if he upends the carefully laid plans of Florida polluters.

Stop Shopping At Publix ... the corporation has given nearly three quarters of a million dollars to GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam in the past three years ... by gimleteye

Read this excellent OPED in the Palm Beach Post. We are unaccustomed to newspaper editorial boards pushing back against political orthodoxies like the right of corporations to be more powerful than people. In this case, Florida's iconic grocery chain: Publix for its unlimited campaign contributions to the GOP designated front-runner to be next governor of Florida, Adam Putnam.

At Eye On Miami, we've written extensively about Putnam, mostly for his role rubber-stamping whatever Big Sugar wants. Putnam is telegenic and a cool performer. His family was also enriched by the South Florida Water Management District, in the most brazen act of government "philanthropy" to an aspiring politician that we've ever experienced in Florida.

We've also written about Publix. Ten years ago, Natacha Seijas, a Miami-Dade county commissioner at the time and the leader of the county's unreformable, pro-growth majority, was facing an acrimonious recall campaign mounted by citizens who were infuriated by Seijas' support for moving the Urban Development Boundary. The recall campaign collected signatures at places where signatures could be easily gathered compared to door-to-door canvassing ie. Publix parking lots. There had been no prohibition against signature collecting at Publix or anywhere else, until Seijas bitterly complained to the corporate headquarters. (Signature petitions are also required to register amendments to the Florida constitution by ballot referendum. At the time, Publix was heavily investing to oppose a ballot referendum -- Florida Hometown Democracy -- that would have, if passed, inhibited the kinds of sprawl that seed new locations for large state-wide retailers like Publix supermarkets.) The net result: a new state law allowing private corporations to stop petition gathering on their properties.

Our times are "polarizing" as the Post editorial board notes. We need more penetrating analysis of the underlying factors in order for an informed public to make good decisions. For the time being, at least, that means -- we add -- stop shopping at Publix.


Editorial: Publix polarizes with political contributions to Putnam
OPINION By The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board

Publix, the heirs to the company’s founder and its current and former leaders have come under fire for giving Republican gubernatorial candidate and consrevative darling Adam Putnam $670,000 in the last three years.

Publix, the supermarket giant that ranks high among things that residents love most about Florida, is learning the perils of political participation in our polarizing age.

Last week, it was reported that the beloved grocery chain has given more money to Adam Putnam’s gubernatorial campaign than to any candidate since 1995, and probably in its entire history.

Publix, the heirs to the company’s founder and its current and former leaders have given the Republican $670,000 in the past three years. Or, as the Tampa Bay Times put it, “enough money to buy 74,527 chicken tender subs.”

“No other Florida candidate has ever come close to that kind of subsidy from Florida’s largest Fortune 500 company,” the Times said. “Its most recent contribution, a $100,000 donation on April 30, was the largest, too, according to the latest campaign finance filings.”

Publix immediately ran into a deli-slicer of criticism. That’s largely because Putnam, a 43-year-old former congressman who is now the state’s agriculture commissioner, famously responded to criticism of his fondness for the National Rifle Association by calling himself “a proud NRA sellout” — a not-so-funny wisecrack given the mass shootings at Pulse nightclub in Orlando and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

The backlash against Publix was fierce. It included tweets like this, from state Rep. Carlos G. Smith, D-Winter Park: “How many flowers did I buy from your stores for funerals, graves, + memorials for Pulse + MSD victims? #BoycottPublix”

Publix, shifting quickly to damage-control mode, tweeted that it “has not provided financial support to the National Rifle Association.” And it swiftly released a statement meant to distance itself from all controversy: “We support bipartisan, business-friendly candidates, regardless of party affiliation and we remain neutral on issues outside of our core business.”

The trouble with this explanation is that, while certainly business-friendly, Putnam has not shown himself to be “bipartisan.” He’s not a candidate for centrists. He makes overt appeals to social and religious conservatives and the Trumpian anti-immigrant right.

While in Congress, Putnam voted to roll back requirements for the Voting Rights Act. He pressed for stricter voter IDs beyond driver licenses in a thinly disguised effort to suppress minority votes.

As a candidate for governor, he is pushing a “Florida Families First” agenda that includes promises to “fight for the life of the unborn and make Florida first in protecting life,” create an “Office of Faith-Based and Community-Based Initiatives within the Executive Office of the Governor” and establish a “Home School and School Choice Ombudsman.”

Putnam’s NRA rating is A+. He has endorsed the open carrying of firearms, and the carrying of guns on college campuses. He criticized Florida’s recently passed law that raised the firearm-purchase age to 21 from 18 and requires mandatory three-day waiting period for firearm purchases.

Sorry, Publix, these are not bipartisan positions.

Publix and Putnam go way back. Putnam was just 22, running for state representative, when Publix made its first donation, for $500, to the local up-and-comer: Publix’s base in Lakeland is 20 minutes from Putnam’s hometown of Bartow.

The generosity seems to go both ways. As agriculture commissioner, Putnam oversees regulation of Publix’s 800 Florida stores. When a TV station reported in 2016 that seven Tampa-area Publix stores failed health inspections, “Putnam responded the next day by pulling the inspections from the department’s website and eliminating the pass/fail grading system,” the Tampa Bay Times wrote. “He replaced it six months later with a new rubric. Instead of a failing grade, the worst rating issued now is ‘re-inspection required.’ ”

Publix can support whomever it wants. That’s its right as a corporate citizen. With 2010’s Citizens United, after all, the U.S. Supreme Court has given the green light to corporations and unions to spend whatever they like in independent political expenditures.

But in a nation as divided as ours, Publix can’t expect to bankroll a candidate without alienating some portion of its public. Call it a sign of the times, but our system is producing few, if any, “bipartisan” politicians. And now, not even a trip to the grocery store “Where Shopping Is a Pleasure” is immune from the tensions pulling the country apart.

Next week, presidential primaries roll into Florida turning attention to Big Sugar ... by gimleteye

Dr. Robert Lustig and Alan Farago

Last night I had dinner in Coral Gables with Dr. Robert Lustig, the San Francisco-based pediatric endocrinologist who has done more than any other individual to bring to the forefront of public attention how Big Sugar poisons people. His YouTube video, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth", has been viewed more than 6.2 million times. Dr. Lustig is, of course, deeply curious how Big Sugar manifests as the top of the political order in Florida. We are both committed to educating the public about the real costs of Big Sugar. (For more, be sure to follow the website: bullsugar.org)

Here was part of our dinner conversation. Imagine if you will, owning a home that appraised at $250,000. A year later, a buyer comes along and offers you $1.2 million. Good deal, or not?

What if it turned out that you worked for the company that made you that deal, that paid you and your attorneys SIX TIMES what that property had been valued, only a year earlier? If you were subsequently in a position of power with respect to that company and its industry, how fairly would you be able to crimp that company's opportunities, once you had gained so much profit?

This is the scenario involving Florida Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam who wants to be Florida's next governor and stands side-by-side Gov. Rick Scott in defending the prerogatives of Big Sugar. Both, as just one example, went on secret hunting trips to the King Ranch in 2014 where they were entertained, along with other top GOP elected state officials, at US Sugar's expense -- ferried back and forth to Florida in US Sugar private jets.

In 2005, the state of Florida purchased the Putnam family farm for more than $25 million. Only one year earlier, it had been appraised at $5.5 million. Read below, the full 2012 story by the Palm Beach Post: "The South Florida Water Management District needed only 600 acres of the ranch in Highlands County for environmental purposes. But it bought all 2,042 acres and did it in a way that arranged for the Putnams a lucrative tax break, while allowing the family to continue grazing cattle on the land rent-free until the district needed the land. After paying the family’s attorney $3.9 million in legal fees, the total deal cost taxpayers nearly $30 million."

Listen carefully, voters, to the following video of Ag Secretary Putnam greeting an angry crowd in Martin County recently. He ignores repeated questions by protesters: why won't you commit the state to buying Big Sugar lands with Amendment 1 moneys, as voters demanded in the 2014 state-wide constitutional ballot referendum? Putnam dodges and weaves. He says, in other words, we are doing everything we can to protect you; just not what you want.

Bullsugar.org from David Preston on Vimeo.
For consistently and obediently toeing the line for corporate Florida, Putnam has become a rising GOP star and soon enough, candidate for governor. He can afford to be a public servant.

With the presidential primaries and their campaigns rolling into Florida, the state GOP had to suppress a civic revolt crystalizing on both coasts as a demand TO BUY BIG SUGAR LANDS south of Lake Okeechobee and set the state on a course to fix the dynamic pollution engine called Lake Okeechobee. Moving water south, as the state announced last week, may or may not help the Everglades and Florida Bay's desperate condition, but it has nothing to do with fixing Lake Okeechobee or the state's need to operate the lake as a cesspit for ag pollution.

To buy out Big Sugar -- which would have been accomplished by the state except for Gov. Rick Scott -- requires upsetting the balance of power in Florida. Big Sugar billionaires like the Fanjuls aren't feeling any pain nor are the Mott Foundation owners of US Sugar. So why vote for their candidates?

Florida Crystals, Pepe Fanjul, first to greet Marco Rubio stepping off stage after his announcement to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2016 election

Ex-congressman got millions in land deal Sunday, June 10, 2012
Christine Stapleton
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Adam Putnam — former congressman, current commissioner of agriculture and widely viewed as the future of Florida politics — became a very rich man in 2005 when taxpayers spent $25.5 million on 2,042 acres of his family’s ranch that had been valued at $5.5 million a year earlier, The Palm Beach Post has learned.

The South Florida Water Management District needed only 600 acres of the ranch in Highlands County for environmental purposes. But it bought all 2,042 acres and did it in a way that arranged for the Putnams a lucrative tax break, while allowing the family to continue grazing cattle on the land rent-free until the district needed the land. After paying the family’s attorney $3.9 million in legal fees, the total deal cost taxpayers nearly $30 million.

Seven years later the district has used only 150 acres and has no plans for the rest. The Putnam cattle graze on, courtesy of Florida taxpayers.

Putnam, a congressman at the time of the deal, said he was careful to not involve himself in it to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Congressional ethics rules do not bar such real estate transactions as long as Putnam did not use his position to sweeten the deal. Records show Putnam was not on any committees that would have allowed him to do so. He said his older brother Will negotiated the deal for the family.

Adam Putnam, Big Sugar and the Great Destroyers … by gimleteye

Fox News Florida branch, Sunshine State News, printed last week, "Putnam on Water Policy: Get Priorities Right From First, Then Spend Accordingly" (January 23, 2015). Some interpretation is needed for readers inclined to take the faux news source literally.

Adam Putnam is the telegenic, multi-millionaire farmer and two-term Secretary of Agriculture. We last observed Secretary Putnam paving the way for Florida Power and Light and the Cabinet's green light to two new nuclear plants at Turkey Point.

Putnam read the motion to approve in the final cabinet meeting before the Nov. 2014 election. For Florida electric utilities and for the recipient of its largesse, Gov. Scott, the optics were perfect. Putnam said a few words. Pam Bondi seconded. The bobble-headed governor, bobbled smilingly. After years of controversy, court hearings and dodging by FPL and hob-knobbing with utility lobbyists by the members of the PSC, Florida Power and Light got what it wanted. Adam Putnam, the man who would be the next governor of Florida, delivered the sunshiny news.

So, it bears paying attention when Sunshine/ Fox surrogate reports what Putnam said to the Florida legislature about water policy.

"Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam on Thursday urged members of the House State Affairs Committee -- the lawmakers charged with increasing spending on water sources and sensitive lands -- to first create "an overarching, already prioritized (water) policy" that will keep the state on the right course for land purchase in good times and bad."

The background for the story is the jostling and jockeying by politicians to grab the $20 plus billion in funding through Amendment 1, that passed by 78 percent of Florida voters last November.

But wait: the basis of the story is that Florida has no "overarching, already prioritized water policy" for land purchases. Who says?

For decades, priorities for water policy and land purchases have been right at the tip of environmentalists' tongues and clearly stated in state policies through Forever Florida --gutted by the GOP legislature during Scott's first term -- and missions of FDEP and the state water management districts.

At the top of the environmentalists' list has always been: Buy Big Sugar Lands For Restoration Into Everglades Wetlands. So why is Putnam deleting history?

The issue is -- and has always been -- that large property owners who control Florida elections have zero interest in fixing their land prices so long as they perceive an endless run of increasing values.

There are some well-publicized cases of state land purchases by willing sellers who recognized the importance of protecting Florida's natural heritage. Then there are cases of lands being purchased at fantastically inflated values (cf. Jeb Bush, Palm Beach Aggregates, L-8 Reservoir). These are not, however, the extraordinarily wealthy farmers -- supported by billion dollar subsidies -- who control state elections.

Those farmers -- Big Sugar billionaires -- take elected officials like Putnam on all-expense paid trips by private jet to the King Ranch in Texas where they discuss strategy, how to expertly game the system through delay, litigation and more delay. Putnam, by the way, slammed a door in the face of a Tampa Bay Times reporter who broke the US Sugar / King Ranch story last year, but that is so yesterday's news.

The second paragraph of the Fox News affiliate's story: "Putnam recommended a long-term plan that focuses on the state's three areas of current emphasis: springs restoration, the northern Everglades and the Central Florida Water Initiative." What, no land purchases in the Everglades Agricultural Area?

What about state purchases of significant acreage now in Florida sugarcane, beginning with the tendered US Sugar properties, the absence of which is bottling up Everglades restoration as completely as a waste water pipe stopped with feminine hygiene products? Nada. Not a word.

Sunshine State News added, "Nobody on the committee, chaired by Matt Caldwell, R-Lehigh Acres, had a question or comment for the commissioner during or after his presentation. Putnam later said he wasn't surprised -- "this is a lot to dump on somebody at one meeting." Wait!

Now the bullshit meter is racing.

Putnam's omission of buying Big Sugar lands with Amendment 1 funds is exactly what the sugar industry wants. No one had a question on Caldwell's committee because the script did not call for questions. Just blank-faced nodding.

And what about the great unwashed public? Here is what Big Sugar tells you and me, through a press release reported by the Palm Beach Post (of course, not the Herald) a few weeks ago during the annual meeting of the Everglades Coalition:

“Surely the preference for Amendment One Funding will be the significant number of shovel-ready projects that will benefit the Everglades, estuaries, lakes, springs and beaches and other environmental priorities all over the state. While the SFWMD holds a legal option on U.S. Sugar land, Everglades restoration plans have taken a much different direction over the last several years as governed by a Federal consent decree and the State’s Everglades Restoration Strategies. As a result of the numerous projects being requested around the state and the emphasis on implementing the shovel-ready projects in South Florida, we have not seen any serious interest in purchasing a large amount of land for which there is no plan or project.”

Florida sugarcane and polluted irrigation canal

"No serious interest" is a lie, pure and simple, and that lie is at the heart of Secretary Putnam's comments and its purpose is to do what Big Sugar has always wanted: push off the date to the infinite future when Everglades restoration might be finally addressed. 

Environmentalists, and especially the Save the Indian River Coalition and its allies, have been clamoring for years about the need to purchase sugar lands to restore a semblance of natural fresh water flow to the dying River of Grass. Store more water and cleanse it, on Big Sugar lands, and less pollution will rip through the estuaries, the Indian River and Caloosahatchee River.

By the way, when then-Gov. Charlie Crist initiated negotiations to purchase US Sugar lands south of Lake Okeechobee, the largest sugar producer in the state -- the Fanjuls of Coral Gables and Palm Beach -- immediately jumped behind Marco Rubio's campaign for US Senate against Crist.

You see: Big Sugar wants to complain that no one is demanding purchase of its lands, while making sure its proxies in the legislature and the Ag Secretary who-would-be-Governor keep any mention of buying Big Sugar lands out of sight, and any mention of eminent domain as far from the public forum as Pluto from Florida Bay.

And while we are on the subject; Fox News Florida Stand-In, Sunshine State News, might have alerted its Florida readership that Matt Caldwell -- silent at Putnam's policy speech -- is another GOP aspirant in the pocket of Big Sugar. (His top leadership post is closely tied to successfully assisting in the unseating of then Lee County commissioner Ray Judah in 2012. Judah, the most informed and outspoken elected official and critic of Big Sugar, was drowned by nearly $1 million in dark money contributions to his opponent, after 24 years in office.)

Faux Fox surrogate continues: "The commissioner characterized the role of committee members in guiding the administration of the "Florida Water and Land Legacy" money as an opportunity to plant a flag in their own personal legacy, "an opportunity to think big and act boldly."

But truth be told, there is no thinking big or acting boldly in this legislature unless it receives the stamp of approval from vested interests who are dead-set against selling their property for environmental purposes, according to the Amendment 1 requirements. Period.

The Fox Sunshine State concludes, "Several groups applauded Putnam's address to the committee, including the H20 Coalition, an offshoot of one of the state's largest business organizations, Associated Industries of Florida. AIF had recommended against Amendment 1 before the Nov. 4 election." No kidding. Now they are at work to direct traffic on how funds are used for Amendment 1.

In other words, the Great Destroyers got Florida Wildlife Federation and Audubon of Florida to do the heavy lifting to pass Amendment 1, and now the black hats have moved in with legislative wire cutters and are in the process of hijacking the largest pot of money ever made available in Florida -- some $20 billion -- to protect the environment.

It's a real life "Ocean's Eleven" except instead of a casino that is getting robbed with hi-tech wizardry, it's the do-gooders opening the vault doors for the black hats to come in, at the last minute. As they leave, they'll hand out a few hundred thousand dollars to any of the groups who will put them on their board of directors or maybe give them an award at their annual meeting.

The do-gooders will get their own plaques featuring wading birds that went extinct despite their earnest efforts and a thank you note.

"Commissioner Putnam'’s recommendations provide an excellent framework to increase Florida'’s water supply and enact common-sense, science-based water quality reforms," AIF President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Feeney said in a written statement. Wait, Tom Feeney?

Oh that Mr. Feeney, as the Tampa Bay Times reports: "(who) … was state House speaker from 2000-2002, when he was elected to Congress from Central Florida. Feeney twice won re-election. Then he fell out of favor after becoming a crony of corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who paid for the congressman to play golf in Scotland. In September 2006, Feeney was named one of the “20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” in a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). He is mentioned four years in a row (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) in the annual reports of CREW. Earlier, Feeney was Jeb Bush's running mate in his first race for governor in 1994." In 2001, the Orlando Sentinel blamed Feeney for the worst session of the Florida legislature in modern history.

Need to read more?

Last week at the Davos World Economic Summit, former Vice President Al Gore said that along with putting a price on carbon emissions, "we need to put a price on denial in politics. People need to stop financing denial." Snap.

People need to stop voting for denial, but Al Gore, when he had the chance as presidential contender in 2000 to put pressure on Florida's Great Destroyers, couldn't find his way to the microphone. He was advised by the same Florida Democrats who direct party traffic flow today. Auden said it best in his 1919 poem, The Second Coming: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

So there's our Monday morning wrap-up. Can't wait for Tuesday.

Get ready for your next GOP Governor or US Senator, pandering to the Great Destroyers: his name is Adam Putnam … by gimleteye

It's all stagecraft, but you better pay attention because if Marco Rubio resigns from the US Senate to run for president, as he has promised, count on a telegenic, baby-faced GOP FL Secretary of Agriculture to be high on the list for appointment to the vacancy and, failing that, a run to succeed Gov. Rick Scott when times comes.

That would be Adam Putnam who emerged this week, recommending that a special Cabinet meeting called to take place at the Florida State Fair, where Gov. Scott will be appearing, be moved to Tallahassee because of the importance of the discussion: the lawsuit filed against the Governor and Cabinet by news organizations for sunshine law violation with respect to the firing of the former FDLE chief, Gerald Bailey.

Such is the incrementalism that distinguishes the state's top elected officials. To wit, we ought to please north Florida crackers who propelled us to a second term, not expose the administration's action in illegally terminating the top law officer in the state (corruption) to a wider audience. In other words, get on with the three-legged races and the hog tie competition. Let the good times roll.

But stomach churning "buyers remorse" for Gov. Scott re-election obscures voters from what else Secretary Putnam is doing to distinguish himself among the people who most count: the big campaign donors who control the GOP and state wide elections. I call them, the Great Destroyers, and that's who Putnam fronted for this week, as he testified before a Congressional committee against the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Commissioner Putnam Testifies Before Joint Congressional Hearing on Newest Federal Overreach
Southeast AgNet – February 4th, 2015
From the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Commissioner of Agriculture Adam H. Putnam testified today on the impacts of the Waters of the United States rule at the Joint Hearing Before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in Washington, D.C.

Excerpts of his testimony are below:

“The EPA has once again made an attempt to expand federal jurisdiction on Florida’s waterways with its proposed changes to the rules guiding the implementation of the Clean Water Act.

“The EPA claims that the purpose of this rule is to clarify which bodies of water are and are not subject to the Clean Water Act. The EPA claims that the proposed regulations will not significantly change what currently is considered Waters of the U.S. And the EPA claims the proposed regulations will not substantially effect communities like agriculture.

“I believe this is another attempt by the EPA to regulate areas outside their authority, and in contradiction to guidance given by the courts.

“Contrary to what the EPA claims, the proposed rule will in fact lack clarity, significantly expand federal jurisdiction, impose burdensome requirements on agriculture, and impede efforts to protect and restore the environment."

Putnam didn't just put on the "hate the EPA" hat, but the change in Congress, funded by America's largest polluters, ripens the atmosphere for more attacks on the EPA.

Regulations are holding back corporations from protecting the environment, according to Putnam, dove-tailing nicely not only with the Republican Congress but the record of the putative GOP front-runner for president, Jeb Bush.

Read the editorial printed earlier here and now at ContextFlorida that puts the light to Adam Putnam and hypocrisy on the environment. Whether voters care that they are being hoodwinked, pointing in the direction of wrecking the environment to keep corporate profits flowing in some imaginary trickle-down benefit to people and wildlife, is a legitimate question.

With corporate money in politics creating a shadow government, by and for special interests and the Great Destroyers, should voters care?

The late October 2014 onslaught of TV attack ads against Charlie Crist by Gov. Rick Scott, funded from his personal fortunate, were the latest proof that Florida voters are only paying on the most visceral level, unable or unwilling to parse facts for themselves. That serves the polluters just fine.

And so, under that toxic spell, the next step could be the US Department of Justice cutting through the bullshit of whether or not to move a Cabinet meeting from the Florida state fair to Tallahassee to bring the weight of federal law down on an administration that cares so little for laws, including the Agriculture Secretary whose ambition is to be the next Governor or US Senator from the Sunshine State.

Rick Scott, Adam Putnam, and Matt Caldwell: Part 2, Turbulent Waters For Florida's Toxic Trio ... by Alan Farago

Everglades Agricultural Area, algae filled drainage ditch

Before Florida's midterm election, the media filled with news reports and visual imagery, spanning network news to the Daily Show, of rampant red tides and toxic algae coating all of Florida's coasts.

After the election? A few pundits noted the impacts on political careers well-grounded in defending polluters.

Big Sugar's best laid plans for the Republican hierarchy came a cropper.

For the first time in Florida political history, Sugar's campaign contributions to state-wide candidates became a threshold issue for candidates and for voters who get it: Florida's water crises is the direct result of dark political money from billionaires turning our waters and Everglades into sacrifice zones for their profits. 

Credit is due to Bullsugar.org whose voter guides highlighted polluted campaign contributions from billionaires who have commandeered the state legislature.

Adam Putnam, whose political career benefited from family wealth derived from a water district funded farm acquisition -- and who has been a strong defender of Big Sugar -- was defeated by Ron DeSantis who made opposition to Big Sugar's cost shifting to taxpayers a central plank in his platform. 

Florida Democrats, again, proved susceptible to Big Sugar money and influence. Where and when they could have planted a flag on the outrageous exchange of Florida waters for corporate welfare, they largely declined or tip-toed through a perceived mine field. cf. Bill Nelson.

Big Sugar, you see, has a different way of forcing its echo chamber into Democratic party ranks. Chris King, Andrew Gillum's running mate, is a notable exception.

Matt Caldwell, who rose to prominence by orchestrating the upset 2012 defeat of Ray Judah -- a Republican commissioner in Lee County who eloquently supported more storage and treatment acreage in the EAA -- failed in his quest to step up the ladder to Agriculture Commissioner. He called Bullsugar, a "hate group", and attacked the group in ads but voters knew better. Look for Caldwell to find a sweet place, like former Democratic senator Jeff Clemens, on the Big Sugar payroll.

"Red Tide" Rick Scott slipped into the US Senate on a razor thin margin, bolstered by a personal investment of tens of millions. A sharper and focused Bill Nelson could have preserved his Senate seat if he had allied himself clearly and strongly against Big Sugar and for Florida's waterways, threatened tourism industries, and the Everglades.

While the punditry has dragged its feet on linking Florida's election outcomes to the toxic influence of Big Sugar, a few raised eyebrows indicate the industry is endlessly resourceful in preserving its prerogatives. It moved with lightning speed after the election, a show of political, legislative, and legal force.

A day after the election on November 7th, the very same day Jeff Sessions resigned as US Attorney General, Sessions signed an extraordinary memorandum providing new guidance to DOJ on federal consent decrees. Its key point: avoid them. Leave the messy business of fixing what is wrong to the states. A day later, the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District -- all appointees of Gov. Rick Scott -- voted to vacate the consent decree that governed relations between the state, the federal government and Big Sugar polluters for a quarter century. If you think the timing was coincidental, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The District timing on its intent to rip up the consent decree was a show of Big Sugar force. It had been supported by very expensive lobbying and lawyering for at least a couple of years. The votes from the 2018 midterm elections hadn't been counted, but Big Sugar really didn't care. 

Do you?

(originally published August 2, 2018)

In the winter of 2016, polluted water from Lake Okeechobee turned from brown to guacamole green, thick with toxic algae carrying cyanobacteria to downstream communities, putting people and businesses in harm's way. In the summer of 2018, it is happening again. Right before midterm elections.

Gov. Rick Scott. Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. State Representative Matt Caldwell. All are seeking to move up the political ladder in November on the Republican side of the slate. Rick Scott is aiming to unseat Bill Nelson, the Democrat incumbent, in the US Senate. Adam Putnam is running to be Florida's next governor. Matt Caldwell, to take Putnam's chair in the state agriculture hierarchy. The ladder is real, and it is constructed carefully by the state's shadow government: Big Sugar.

There are a handful of Big Sugar players, and a much larger circle of influence peddlers, but there are two billionaire families who are the mainstay of the Big Sugar cartel; the descendants of Charles Stuart Mott who own US Sugar Corporation and the Fanjul family, owners of Florida Crystals and a vertically integrated, transnational sugar empire.

Both the Mott descendants and the Fanjuls spend heavily to make rules and regulations work their way while claiming a public benefit: "farming for families to put the food on your table". They never say that sugar is not a food but a substance more addictive than cocaine when consumed in excess. But that is another story.

Sun Sentinel: Excellent OPED on the corruption of corporate money in Florida politics ... by gimleteye

THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING TO FLORIDA VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS.

Florida’s campaign swamp is wider and deeper than Publix | Editorial

The uproar over Publix’s contributions to Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam’s campaign for governor is the latest chapter in a too-familiar story: the exorbitant influence of corporate money in Florida politics. Publix is merely one of many players in this high-stakes game.

The differences this time are the enormity of a single company’s support for a particular candidate, the resulting social media campaign against Publix, and its decision, announced Friday, to suspend political contributions.

“We would never knowingly disappoint our customers or the communities we serve,” a spokesman said.

There have been few occasions when public pressure yielded such immediate results.

The Fortune 500 company and some of its present and former executives had given at least $670,000 directly to Putnam’s campaign fund or to Florida Grown, his political action committee, and likely much more through other committees where the money can’t be traced.

What made the revelation more than a one-day sensation is Putnam’s unrepentant pro-gun advocacy at a time when most Floridians still feel shock and anger over the Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, where 17 people were killed and 17 injured.

Putnam’s light-hearted boast last year of being a “proud NRA sellout” was the lightning rod for the wrath.

All eyes on Publix: What crisis experts have to say about a rough week
Publix, one of Florida's largest employers, is facing heavy criticism over its donations to gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam, who has referred to himself on social media as a "proud #NRASellout!"
It’s true, as the Lakeland-based grocer says, that Putnam is a home-town candidate whom it has backed throughout his 22-year career in the Legislature, in Congress and on the Florida Cabinet. Nor is there reason to doubt that it supports him for his pro-business policies, not his hands-off approach to gun safety.

But that defense raises two questions. What have those pro-business policies meant for Publix and other grocery stores overseen by the Division of Food Safety, which falls under Putnam’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services? And what might they say about the greater regulatory role Putnam would assume if he’s elected governor?

Fifteen months ago, a television station reported that seven Publix Stores in the Tampa Bay area had failed the department’s health inspections over issues such as rodent control and safe storage of meat. A day later, Putnam purged the inspections from his department’s website and got rid of the pass/fail grading system. Now, “re-inspection required” is the worst you’ll read about any store he oversees. At the time, Publix had given $160,000 to Florida Grown. The obvious favor to a major donor smells like rotten potatoes.

Publix's Putnam debacle offers lesson in good corporate governance | Opinion
In the long run, the storm over Putnam and guns probably will blow over for Publix, just as it did for competitor Winn-Dixie after its unsuccessful opposition to the 1971 referendum authorizing the corporate income tax. Its propaganda went home with every customer, printed in red on grocery bags. Gov. Reubin Askew, who sponsored the tax, fanned a public backlash against the company and won the referendum with 70 percent of the vote.

But corporations didn’t dominate Florida elections in the 1970s like they do now. It would have been impossible for any company to bankroll a candidate like Publix has Putnam. There were strict limits on contributions to candidates and also, on what candidates could spend. Neither did “independent” political action committees exist to raise and shell out money that favor certain candidates.

Askew spent only $533,629 to win re-election in 1974, the equivalent of $2.7 million today. Putnam’s official campaign and Florida Grown spent almost as much, $2.4 million, just last month.

So far, Putnam has raised $5.4 million in his own name and spent $1.8 million of it. But Florida Grown has raised $26 million since January 2017 and is sitting on more than $20 million. And that’s small compared to Gov. Rick Scott’s political committee, which has raised and spent $57 million since 2014.

Most such committees share common contributors, among them Florida Power and Light, U.S. Sugar, Florida Crystals, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries. FP&L, for example, has given $400,000 to Putnam and $940,000 to Scott, who’s running against U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson.

Current law sets a $3,000 per-person ceiling on contributions to a candidate’s official campaign, applied separately to the primary and general election. But there are no limits on donations to candidates’ political committees, such as Florida Grown, which operate under the fiction that they deal only with issues.

Name recognition is to politicians what location is to real estate. A television spot touting Putnam’s hard-right views on the issues of guns, immigration or voting rights is as useful to him as if it urged Republicans to choose him over Rep. Ron DeSantis of Jacksonville, his major opponent in the August primary.

“Your ad does not have to have express advocacy in it to be effective,” says Mark Herron, a Tallahassee attorney who’s an expert on election law. “If you put things in the right box, you could do almost anything in Florida.”

A 2016 opinion by the Division of Elections implied that an “issue” ad naming a known candidate could be considered a campaign contribution by his political action committee, subject to the $3,000 limit. It hasn’t been tested in court. It should be. In any event, U.S. Supreme Court precedents still allow corporations to spend whatever they wish, directly.

In the last two election cycles, Florida’s four largest energy companies contributed more than $43 million to state candidates, parties and political committees, as totaled in a report this month from Integrity Florida, a public interest watchdog.

The report, requested by the Alliance for Clean Energy, noted that the energy companies spent $20 million on an unsuccessful initiative to limit rooftop solar expansion. Another $40,000 in individual contributions went to legislators who sit on the council that nominates state energy regulators, and $1.8 million to Gov. Rick Scott, who appoints them. So it’s no surprise that the so-called Public Service Commission has largely become the industry’s puppets, at immense cost to Florida consumers.

Of the $670,000 that the Tampa Bay Times traced from Publix to Putnam, $410,000 was given through Florida Grown. It’s likely much more has found its way there through other committees to which Publix contributes.

For example, committees associated with Florida’s three largest business organizations received $2.3 million from Publix since January 2015 and gave $1.45 million to Putnam. A political committee run by a Venice accountant received $20,000 from Publix and its executive, and gave $221,237 to Florida Grown before shutting down last year. That was more than half its total spending. The Republican Party was the only other committee to which it contributed.

As these committees comingled Publix’s money with donations from other sources, it’s impossible to say how much of it eventually went to Putnam.

This form of laundering is legal. But it is wrong. It maximizes corporate power over government in ways that are nearly invisible to the public. It is a fault line that will continue to endanger democracy in Florida long after this election. That, more than guns or any other specific issue, is the scandal represented by Publix’s largesse to Putnam.

Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O'Hara, Elana Simms, Andy Reid and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson.

Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam wants to "vaporize" citizens who vote ... by gimleteye

Putnam stated "anyone affiliated with Bullsugar or buying lands in the EAA, would be vaporized". Here is a brief explanation of what Putnam said, according to a FB post by Michael Conner -- a spokesperson for Bullsugar.

Adam Putnam is Rick Scott's right-hand man. Aspiring to be Florida's next governor. Putnam, a Republican whose family farm was bought by the state of Florida at a multiple of its appraised value, is the biggest defender of Big Sugar. In 2005, the state of Florida purchased the Putnam family farm for more than $25 million. Only one year earlier, it had been appraised at $5.5 million. "The South Florida Water Management District needed only 600 acres of the ranch in Highlands County for environmental purposes. But it bought all 2,042 acres and did it in a way that arranged for the Putnams a lucrative tax break, while allowing the family to continue grazing cattle on the land rent-free until the district needed the land. After paying the family’s attorney $3.9 million in legal fees, the total deal cost taxpayers nearly $30 million."

Bullsugar is coalescing civic energy -- Florida's Arab Spring -- against a status quo organized around Big Sugar's domination of the Florida legislature and executive branch.

Thanks to Bullsugar, voters are beginning to understand why they pay the price when the legislature gives Big Sugar what it wants, when it wants it.

Big Sugar wants to squeeze the last cent out of the Everglades Agricultural Area, then develop it into zero lot line suburbs.

Bullsugar wants to buy sufficient lands from the Everglades Agricultural Area to protect the rivers, bays and estuaries that contribute billions of dollars of economic value to Florida.

Big Sugar wants to protect two billionaire families, the descents of Charles Stuart Mott who control U.S. Sugar Corporation and the Fanjul families who own Florida Crystals, Flo-Sun and other sugar enterprises.

Bullsugar wants to protect millions of Florida taxpayers. Buy the land, send clean water south.

Big Sugar wants the public to pay for its pollution of the Everglades. In January 2015, Putnam lied to the Palm Beach Post, saying, "As a result of the numerous projects being requested around the state and the emphasis on implementing the shovel-ready projects in South Florida, we have not seen any serious interest in purchasing a large amount of land for which there is no plan or project."

Bullsugar wants to unify voters who will, eventually, overturn Big Sugar's domination of Florida.

Big Sugar wants to divide voters, whether Republican or Democrat, to keep its prerogatives in place.

Bullsugar is using social media to link supporters around the state.

Big Sugar is using newspapers and local business councils -- speaking as advertisers for mainstream media -- to spread disinformation.

Bullsugar is relying on science and facts to press its case for land acquisition south of Lake Okeechobee.

Big Sugar depends on fictions it has used, for decades, to keep agencies and politicians in line.

Bullsugar organizes volunteers and property owners willing to spend after-tax earnings to fight the battle to "buy the land, send clean water south".

Big Sugar is using pretax profits from corporate welfare and subsidies to fund engineers, consultants, lawyers and a PR machine to fight the will of voters.

Bullsugar represents the first effort, in many decades, to confront Big Sugar directly, unequivocally, and without fear.

That's why Ag. Secretary Adam Putnam wants to "vaporize" Bullsugar.org

INCREDIBLE: How GOP politics in Florida is poisoned by Big Sugar ... by gimleteye

Read this incredible news report in Politico. On an evening when the top GOP candidates sparred for the first time in public, Big Sugar's influence peddling was on full display yet none in the audience, or the candidates for the matter, dared touch the issue of subsidies and corporate welfare benefiting the billionaires who were not in attendance but watching from behind the velvet curtains of the Republican Party of Florida.

For at least eight years, Big Sugar carefully cultivated its successor to Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who proved amenable to giving the industry whatever concessions it wants. (For his work on their behalf, Big Sugar is pushing hard for Gov. Scott to defeat Democratic Senator Bill Nelson this November.) That successor: Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam. Putnam's own incredible deal with the state (his family farm was purchased at a multiple of appraised value by Florida) assured his place in the pantheon of sugar-bought politicians.

Congressman Ron DeSantis emerged unexpectedly to challenge the carefully scripted GOP program for Scott's successor. And he did so with the early endorsement of the president he is fiercely defending in Congress, Donald Trump.

At Eye On Miami, we've speculated about Trump's relationship with Big Sugar; ie. that Palm Beach royalty, led by the Florida Crystal's Fanjul family, viewed Trump for many years as a crass arriviste. He would have known. When it came time to choose its candidate to succeed Obama, Big Sugar naturally threw its weight behind Liddle Marco Rubio. So perhaps Trump's quick endorsement of DeSantis has something to do with the double edged sword.


First Florida GOP gubernatorial forum ends in scuffle with anti-DeSantis activists
By MATT DIXON 05/06/2018 08:00 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

ORLANDO — Florida’s two Republican gubernatorial candidates, appearing at the same forum for the first time on Saturday night, largely agreed on a host of conservative issues like expanding school choice, protecting gun rights or imposing stricter abortion laws.

But the event hosted by the conservative Florida Family Policy Council and moderated by GOP pollster Frank Luntz could not mask what is turning into a nasty Republican primary between between Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam and Rep. Ron DeSantis.

The coarseness of the campaign was on display outside the doors of the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, where a young man in a red “Make America Great” hat handed out packets packed with opposition research on DeSantis. The packet, titled “Who is the Real Ron DeSantis?” carried the disclaimer “paid for by the National Liberty Federation.” It’s a group with ties to US Sugar that has spent roughly $1.5 million in ads so far hammering DeSantis.

Zika Secrecy: it is not about a mosquito, it is about cancer clusters in Florida ... by gimleteye

An extraordinary Miami Herald report today, "Mayors say state told them to keep Zika sites secret", points in the direction of the Florida Department of Health and the Rick Scott administration's steadfast refusal to disclose information related to cancer clusters in Florida; specifically, rare pediatric cancer clusters.

The state is withholding very important information from citizens, taxpayers and voters because five separate, independent statistical analyses have concluded that cancer clusters are real, and that at least one rare pediatric cancer cluster is in Miami-Dade. The state, in the Herald report, cites the prohibition against releasing public health data for "ongoing epidemiological investigations".

The state's tactic -- secrecy -- is to keep cancer incidence, rates, and locations "ongoing" so that the people running around wearing pink ribbons and jogging shorts aren't also armed with facts.

If the state releases information on Zika sites, it cannot continue to stonewall against release of rare pediatric cancer sites. Right now, the reason that the public is quiet on the cancer cluster issue is that the state will not release the block level census data that would allow -- like with Zika -- a vector map.

The Miami Herald report also catches Agriculture Secretary Adam Putnam in a lie. The mayors claim that Putnam was one of the state officials who told them to keep the Zika sites, secret. Now, Putnam appears to be "dumbfounded". (The Herald doesn't call it, a lie.) That's Adam Putnam, who wants to be the next governor of Florida. That's Adam Putnam, who took secret trips to the King Ranch in Texas -- hosted by one of the state's biggest polluters -- and who slammed the door in a reporter's face when questioned.

If you are not outraged, voters and taxpayers, you are not paying attention.

Social media propels public around obstacles thrown up by Big Sugar ... by gimleteye

A reader groused, "Every time I read this blog there is an environmental crisis. Why don't you move to California?" Actually, what I wrote yesterday was about a political crisis in Florida. Not strictly an environmental one and one that is remarkable: a first in Florida. The use of social media to galvanize the public on both coasts.

Special interests that turn the cleaning of Big Sugar's pollution into primarily a taxpayer responsibility have always benefited from a complacent media hewing closely to the line of advertisers, Chambers of Commerce, Associated Industries, the Farm Bureau and so forth.

Florida politics organizes along identical lines. Consider just one example: how Miami-Dade County last year passed a resolution calling on the Florida legislature to purchase environmental sensitive lands, owned by US Sugar Corporation, south of Lake Okeechobee in order to be converted to storage and cleansing marshes. That measure -- sponsored by Commissioner Daniella Levine Cava -- passed unanimously. It was subsequently ignored by the Miami-Dade delegation to the state legislature -- Republicans in the pocket of Big Sugar and Democrats too numbed by the difficulty of countering Big Sugar's domination.

If the Florida legislature and Gov. Rick Scott and his backup led by Ag Secretary Adam Putnam had agreed in 2015 to support the US Sugar buyout, the state would be on the way to solving the dynamic pollution engine that is Lake Okeechobee. But they didn't, and as a result, the historic rainfalls in January triggered an equally unprecedented event: social media as an organizing tool for a furious public in areas that vote mostly Republican.

Daniella Levine Cava Legislative Matter

It is a measure of social media's power that Florida politicians, with presidential primary season around the corner, implored Gov. Scott to do something to neutralize citizens using Facebook, Instagram, and blogs immune to the pressure of advertisers. They needed to put out the fast fuse, now, hoping that social media would not further ignite an historically complacent electorate.

Gov. Rick Scott and Ag. Secretary Adam Putnam did not put out the fuse. They moved it. They got federal agencies to agree to shift hundreds of billions of gallons of polluted water towards Everglades. What Gov. Scott did, and the US Army Corps of Engineers and national park service agreed to, was to release a huge volume of rainfall that had stacked up in a water conservation area (called WCA 3-A) south of Lake Okeechobee. The primary purpose of that water is the fresh water supply of millions of residents on Florida's east coast. By sending the water which may or may not meet clean water standards, into the Everglades, Florida Bay, and Miami-Dade county canals, they create "room" for the new and polluted water to stack up. The water that is released into WCA 3-A will be replaced by filthy water from Lake Okeechobee. What happens to that water is anyone's guess, but it is a question mark that will not be addressed by science until after presidential primary season blows through Florida.

The workaround by Gov. Scott and acquiescence by federal agencies can be justified as a measure to protect the lives of downstream communities in the path of devastating floods if heavy rainfalls cause Lake Okeechobee to breach. The diversion of water will also help -- for a moment -- the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, most threatened by high water levels in the Everglades. In fact, Tribal residents in the Everglades are the most vulnerable to heavy public health costs of toxic water. Without adding storage and cleansing capacity from Big Sugar lands, Gov. Scott and Ag Secretary Adam Putnam just postponed a day of reckoning, when pollution will devastate the Everglades and Florida Bay.

There is a further hitch. Having taken to social media in the hundreds of thousands, it is clear voters and taxpayers will not be placated by diversionary tactics of Gov. Scott and Ag. Secretary Putnam, just two of the high GOP officials who took secret hunting trips to the King Ranch in Texas before the 2014 election, ferried back and forth on private jets and paid for by US Sugar Corporation.

Not a single voter with bullhorns and signs on bridges and highways demanding the state and federal government fix the problem of Big Sugar gets to travel on private jets. What is happening in Florida -- this political crisis -- is another manifestation of a class conflict pitting struggling voters against wealthy special interests and politicians in their back pockets.

The Florida legislature should have listened to the Miami-Dade County Commission last year, when the commission passed a resolution by unanimous vote that Amendment 1 funds -- secured through a constitutional measure passed by more than 75 percent of voters in 2014 -- to purchase more storage and cleansing marshes.

Last week, Monroe County Commissioner George Neugent expressed his belief along the same line as Miami-Dade: that our economy and prospects are being wrecked by upstream water pollution. This is not a problem segregating Florida Bay from the Indian River opening to the Atlantic, or the Caloosahatchee to the Gulf of Mexico dividing the southwest from Florida's urban millions to the southeast; its no different from members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians to upstream farm workers intimidated by the good old boy network that surrounds them. It is time to fix the mess: a political mess, not just an environmental one.

As to the reader's question, why am I always writing about an environmental crisis? The answer: it is what readers want. Hundreds of thousands are paying attention on social media. Just look at the Facebook page: Bullsugar.org. Florida has never experienced a populist movement like this -- it is not organized by traditional environmental groups -- , and that's newsworthy.

Thanks Jim,

... Your email represents hundreds I've received. This has reached a level which calls for immediate and a forever cure to this ongoing catastrophe that has been allowed to go on for too long.

For me you hit the nail squarely on the head: what has more value, the Everglades and all that entails, Fisheries - Recreational & Commercial - the 3rd largest barrier reef of the world, S. Florida's economy Or a subsidized sugar industry?

Take the $200,000,000 million dollars Monroe County sends to Tallahassee annually from sales tax and direct it to fixing this problem in a lasting way.

I will forward you my letters to the appropriate and responsible players that hold the power for immediate action on this ongoing catastrophe. This has clearly become a "All hands on Deck" situation.

Kind regards,
George Neugent
Monroe County Commissioner

When it comes to Florida politics, Big Sugar is an equal opportunity polluter ... by gimleteye

In politics, Big Sugar is an equal opportunity polluter: it casts its net wide irrespective of party affiliation.

In this election cycle, Big Sugar put up its "Toxic Trio" on the Republican side. Gov. Rick Scott, slated to advance from the governor's mansion where he proved his worth, to the US Senate. Scott was the friendliest of governors to Big Sugar. He axed the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the state agency formed out of bipartisan consensus in a kinder 1980's moment when balancing economic growth with protection of the environment was a priority. No more. Scott also slashed the budgets of the science staff of the South Florida Water Management District and set his governing board members to harassing citizens objecting to the trashing of Florida waters. For that good work, Scott gets Sugar's support to be in the US Senate.

Big Sugar's chosen successor to be the next Florida governor was Adam Putnam until he was upended by Congressman Ron DeSantis. Putnam is from a family whose farmland was purchased by the state for FIVE TIMES its appraised value. Putnam was Big Sugar's best friend as state agriculture commissioner and went to Washington to oppose Congress' involvement is approving tough anti-pollution rules for farmland runoff into public waters. For that, Big Sugar put him on the ladder to be the state's next governor.

The third in the "Toxic Trio": Matt Caldwell. As state legislator, Caldwell headed a political committee that made sure Lee County Commissioner Ray Judah's political career would end. Judah had the guts to call out Big Sugar's pollution of waters in Lee County. In the last weeks of his 2012 campaign, Big Sugar dumped a million dollars into a PAC controlled by Caldwell. Gone. For proving his mettle on this and other anti-environmental initiatives, Caldwell is on tap to succeed Putnam as the state's next agriculture commissioner.

In the 2017 session of the state legislature, the "Toxic Trio", Scott, Putnam, and Caldwell, lined up against the initiative by then Senate President Joe Negron to fix "once and for all" the terrible trashing of Florida's waterways as a result of billions of gallons of filthy Lake Okeechobee water released to lower lake levels. Caldwell held the Big Sugar line in the State House of Representatives.

At the time, Miami state senator Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Democrat, emerged to partner with Negron's call for at least 40,000 acres of additional storage treatment marshes in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Big Sugar is farmed on about 500,000 acres. More than 200 scientists signed the Now or Neverglades Declaration endorsing the plan to add marshland to soak up polluted Lake O water. Over many years and science based work, the nation's premier science agency -- the National Academies of Science -- called for the same. Florida voters in 2014 had overwhelmingly approved a major ballot referendum to raise money for this purpose.

Negron asked Rodriguez to help build Democratic support for his bill. Big Sugar blocked that, too. State Senator Jeff Clemens, from Palm Beach County, set the Democratic roadblock in the Senate. Later Clemens would complain that environmentalists failed to lobby him. Still later that year his political career would self-destruct as the result of a sex scandal. But Clemens landed on his feet: he now works for Big Sugar.

If Governor Scott had agreed to exercise the 2010 option to purchase US Sugar lands, there would be today more than 130,000 acres in public ownership. Taxpayers and voters would be 8 years ahead of solving the terrible algae bloom problem that starts with Big Sugar's legacy pollution in Lake Okeechobee, from the decades the industry used the lake as its open sewer.

If Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam had supported tough federal pollution standards, instead of the wishy washy "voluntary compliance" measures -- promoted by Rick Scott -- that allow certain Big Sugar farms to dump huge volumes of pollution into taxpayers' laps, we would far along the path to hold the polluters accountable for the costs of their pollution.

If State Rep Matt Caldwell had supported Senator Negron's original plan, Florida taxpayers wouldn't be on a fool's errand of supporting deep well injection to "solve" the pollution problem by burying all that toxic waste below our drinking water supply. We wouldn't have to twiddle our thumbs, watching our rivers turn to shit, and wait more than a decade for proof a massive $2 billion EAA reservoir, 23 feet deep, will be anything more than a breeding lake for the same red tides, algae, life-threatening bacteria and phantom viruses we suffer today.

Guess who won't get a chance for a soft landing on Big Sugar's payroll like Jeff Clemens did or Gaston Cantens, the former Miami legislator who runs the Fanjul billionaire's political operations?

Florida taxpayers. No soft landing, either, for Florida voters.

There is a lesson here. Know where your candidates stand in relation to Big Sugar BEFORE you cast your vote. Pay attention to where their money comes from. Follow the PAC money that supports their campaigns. Vote Clean Water.

(Click here for a link to the Bullsugar Candidate Questionnaire.

Click here for a link to the Bullsugar Voter Guide.)

Repel the invaders of democracy. In November 2018, will voters still remember why they were so furious in February? ... by gimleteye

The Parkland massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School triggered the largest demonstrations by students since the Vietnam War.

I was a high school student in the late 1960's. If memory serves me well, I was as passionate and determined as the children today who took their protest against weapons of war in American streets to Tallahassee and to the White House in Washington, DC. I marched against the war, organized, and campaigned for Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern -- both Democrats -- before I was old enough to vote. I recall the marvel of technology called the mimeograph machine where I was assigned to make copies of protest flyers.

I didn't just march. My teenage activism deeply impacted my adult life as an engaged and ardent Friend of the Everglades and supporter of clean air, clean water and a sustainable planet. The point: while my passion didn't burn out, I have become very well educated how to tend the flame.

The short observation: the elections during the throes of the Vietnam War didn't work out so well for either McCarthy or McGovern. Beyond the fact of our favorite candidates losing, the student protests of the 1960's lit a fire under the far right that quickly materialized (as history records) the organization of a lobbyist culture built to protect a right-wing message machinery that remains far more sophisticated and well-funded than its opponents among Democrats or Independents.

The obstacles to change materializing from student protests today are enormous.

For one, the NRA -- a front organization for a few billionaire gun manufacturers -- is a well-oiled and politically sophisticated machine. The NRA front men have taken cover, for the time being, while key surrogates like President Trump and Senator Marco Rubio (from my home state, Florida) play delay, waiting out controversial choices that keep weapons of war on American streets and inside American schools.

It is a telling signal that corporate America remains on the sidelines as if to say, this is not our battle. No corporate race to support the children or grieving families: neither at Sandy Hook, nor Parkland nor the Denver suburb where movie goers were shot up like figures in a computer game.

So, what to make of this generation's nightmare compared to the 1960's?

Think about it this way. Students in the 1960's protested US foreign policies including an invasion of Vietnam under false pretense: communism's imminent spread through falling dominoes in Southeast Asia.

Today, the United States is not invading: we are being invaded. Recently, Business Insider reported:

The Economist Intelligence Unit released on Wednesday its 2017 Democracy Index, which ranks 167 countries on a 0 to 10 scale. Only countries with scores above 8 are categorised as "full" democracies.

The US was downgraded from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy" in the same study last year, which cited the "low esteem in which US voters hold their government, elected representatives, and political parties."

Obviously, the invasions against American democracy are being duly noted. Since the Parkland shootings, President Trump has signaled an idea -- trumpeted in private by the NRA which poured more than $30 million into his 2016 campaign -- that the solution to in-school violence is to arm more teachers and janitors with rifles inside schools.

Voters should be repelled by the illogic of inviting an invasion of violence into safe-spaces.

It is also a fact that the United States has been invaded -- using social media platforms as superhighways into American politics -- by a hostile foreign power, Russia under Putin; a fact that the Republican Party -- once the hawkish party of the right -- and President Trump just plain refuse to acknowledge or accept.

Today's student protesters are real American patriots. They need to understand themselves that way and spread the message like tens of millions of Paul Revere's. The nation's enemies are tolerate attacks on our way of life and force us to consequences; whether through the internet, troll factories spewing lies, or deranged gunmen whose right to carry AR-15's are protected by a NRA taking millions from Russia.

If student protesters embrace this grounding idea, that they are the true patriots, the next problem to address: will American voters stay focused and engaged for the better part of a year, until next November's election, to tip the balance back to common sense and to repel the invaders?


RELATED:
As of Feb. 18, Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam still had the “NRA Sellout” language on his campaign website, but it has since been removed, according to tweets highlighting the removal.

Once a 'proud NRA sellout,' Putnam won't say if he'd use term again
By MATT DIXON 02/20/2018 09:01 PM EST Updated 02/20/2018 10:11 PM EST

TALLAHASSEE — Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam began his gubernatorial campaign by branding himself an “NRA sellout,” and after a Florida school shooting that left 17 dead last week, will not say if he would use the controversial language again.