Former mayoral candidate C.J. Lewis may have violated Florida Elections laws with his recent mailing of 5,000 flyers to Pensacola voters regarding his stance against the new charter referendum.
Under Florida Elections Laws: “An independent expenditure means an expenditure made by a person for the purpose of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or the approval or rejection of an issue, which expenditure is not controlled by, coordinated with, or made upon consultation with, any candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee.”
According to Florida Statute 106.071 “Independent expenditures; electioneering communications; reports; disclaimers.—
“(2) Any political advertisement paid for by an independent expenditure shall prominently state “Paid political advertisement paid for by (Name and address of person paying for advertisement) independently of any (candidate or committee).
(4) Any person who fails to include the disclaimer prescribed in subsection (2) in any political advertisement that is required to contain such disclaimer commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”
As you can see, there is no such statement on Mr. Lewis’ mass mailing (see Lewis Flyer). He could be facing a first degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by a year in prison and possibly a $1000 fine. I’m not sure if the fine is per flyer sent. Now maybe the proper disclaimers were added to some of the flyers.
In an email that Mr. Lewis sent out on the eve of Hurricane Ida making landfall, he clearly says that the flyers are from him:
From: Christopher J. Lewis
Subject: CITY CHARTER VOTE
To: “Christopher J. Lewis”
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 10:06 PM
All,With Ida about to hit and a big consolidation commission tomorrow I think I’ve done what I can on the charter vote issue. I managed to get out nearly 5000 of these flyers by mail or hand-delivery, with some much needed help. Thanks you rebels!
The CRC process was so corrupted I don’t see how this matter ever got to a vote. No one on the council disputes what I’ve written and I do know they wish I’d go away. Maren DeWeese thinks I’ve blown a gasket over this issue and maybe I have. Few things are as important as “our” government. It’s still ours, by the way, even if the council pretends to not hear us every two weeks.
I think either form of government “could” potentially work but without anything written down by the Charter Review Commission to explain and justify, we really have no idea why they recommended what they did. Just because something feels good doesn’t make it good government. If our CRC had submitted a Final Report like they will soon do in Jacksonville, or did in Sacramento (see example at the link), we’d understand their intent. We’d all then have a common point of departure for a great public debate. Instead we have the present mess which grossly oversimplifies the issue down to “Change” versus “Status Quo.” http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/documents/CRC_Final_Report.pdf
In truth, we all should know we need to improve our government. When we figure out exactly what’s broken we can then come up with specific recommended changes. For the moment we don’t actually know. The CRC took some shortcuts and skipped over that phase, probably because the prevailing majority knew where they wanted to end up before they started out. They can say different but the written and video record proves otherwise. Some of the so-called “experts” who testified were even related by marriage, business relationship or personal friendship to people on the CRC.
As decision-making processes go it was a pretty sad example of how not to be fair and objective. The council was asleep at the wheel and let it all get out of hand. They then found themselves boxed into a corner being hammered by the not-so Independent News Weekly and Pensacola News Journal who urged them to bring this to a vote ASAP. They too readily caved to pressure and here we are.
If you know anyone in the city who would benefit from some factual information about the CRC’s “process,” please forward them my flyer. Other than Derek Cosson’s ProgressivePensacola.com no one will touch any of this information with a ten foot pole. Tell your friends about his website which plays it straight down the middle letting all sides vent. Finally, a shameless plug for Evergreen Print & Mail at 318 Beverley Parkway, 429-0700. If ever you want to self-fund your own neighborhood revolution, Ken Barzacchini is the guy to go see.
S/F,
CJ
——————–
And while we know that Mr. Lewis opposes the proposed charter, we do not know if he is also a financial backer of No Boss Mayor, since they have not released any campaign finance reports since November 2.
Popularity: 29% [?]
blogs are the sticky wicket in the electioneering communication arena. they have gotten protection as media outlets but then again, they can be used to skirt the laws.
websites that are pro-con for specifics are required to put disclaimers. the IN is safe by expressing a yay/nay because it is a media outlet.
this particular part of the election code hasn’t kept up w/the times. to me the hair split exists at the definition of the blog’s purpose. if it exists to do nothing more than push/pull on an issue, it is an electioneering communication (imho). if it is an ongoing community focused blog then we go back to grey…..
Rick said: “Where it appears Mr. Lewis crossed the line is by spending money on campaign literature without putting the proper disclaimer on it.”
But Rick, your later post describes electioneering communication as “any communications media” except spoken word. Then I would say a blog post is certainly a communication media. Why would that be protected and a letter not be?:
“18)(a) “Electioneering communication” means a paid expression in any communications media prescribed in subsection (13) by means other than the spoken word in direct conversation that:
1. Refers to or depicts a clearly identified candidate for office or contains a clear reference indicating that an issue is to be voted on at an election, without expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or the passage or defeat of an issue.
(snip)
3. For communications containing a clear reference indicating that an issue is to be voted on at an election, is published after the issue is designated a ballot position or 120 days before the date of the election on the issue, whichever occurs first.”
I can see why the judge ruled it unconstitutional, as you reported.
Jill speaking of smear. What’s your point about whether we’ve read the opinions of the likes of Moby or Diane Mack? Mack’s AT Large seat has been saved and now she has a public opinion and Moby prints it. So what?
I agree with anon, we simply disagree .
Keep reading Moby for your information, I’ve read the new charter and made my decision.
Jill S. — I did read O’Brien’s column as well as Diane Mack’s opinion. I disagree with them & agree with those who have spoken out against the revised charter. My opinion is no more without merit than is yours. We simply disagree and I believe your side will prevail. I wonder how you’ll feel when the strong mayor you don’t support happens to get elected.
Anon and Mike must not have read Diane Mack or Mark O’Brien or for that matter just about everyone that has written on the matter. The fear and smear is not working. It is tired and without merit. I voted YES!
Ditto anon 12:50
Well said.
Ms Spencer — I took the time to study the process and do not have praise for your product. I expected the CRC to outline problems with the current form of government that needed to be fixed & then propose appropriate changes. Instead, you developed a revised charter without detailing what problems you identified and how the changes you propose would fix those problems. I thank you for your time, but not the product you produced. I would have much preferred a comprehensive report & the ability to vote on different provisions of the revised charter. Instead, I have to vote for the entire package or reject the entire package. I voted to reject. Having said that, I think the powerful & those with money in this community will prevail. If I’m right, you’ll have the best mayor money can buy.
CJ, I am dumbfounded by your continued attacks on the CRC and me. We are a group of volunteers that spent 21 months of hard work taking testimony, listening to experts, studying charters and encouraging public input. We took our task extremely serious and did a fine job. While your mailer may have not violated election laws, you certainly dance on the edge of libel. Your comments are false and malicious. Regarding the alleged rumor, no such occurred with the PNJ and relating to the conversation relating to a “final report” with Haraway, I do not recall any such conversation. What I do recall was that there is a very thorough summary of the process that was provided to the City Council along with the proposed Charter. This process and Charter have received nothing but praise from those who have taken the time to study it. I congratulate the citizen volunteers who made up the Charter Review Commission. This blue ribbon panel did an excellent job. Everyone involved is owed a big thank you, including the citizens, business leaders and experts that participated in the process.
Not a chance that this is a violation. Just a bunch of smoke and mirrors by the “change the government crowd.” Remember, be careful of the “change” you ask for… Look at Obama.
Getoffmyback:
I have made it very clear our paper supports the new charter. This website is mine – bears my name. I sign all my posts. It existed before the charter referendum (since 2005) and will exist after the charter referendum. You may not like my viewpoints, but I do my best to give the reasons for them. Mr. Lewis expressing his opinion isn’t a crime. The State Elections Commission will have to determine if he was required to add the proper disclaimer on this mass mailing. I do find it odd that he didn’t check with the Supervisor of Elections before doing such an expensive political move. After all, he is always the first to questions others about following the law.
What is so strange about this is that Christopher J. Lewis is so meticulous about the council and others following the rules. Yet here he is claiming he didn’t know better – “It wasn’t intentional.” Karma is tough, Mr. Lewis.
Escambiamom:
Expressing an opinion isn’t illegal. Spending money to get someone to vote for or against a candidate or issue isn’t either. Where it appears Mr. Lewis crossed the line is by spending money on campaign literature without putting the proper disclaimer on it. The flyers were addressed “To the Voter” of whatever address. Mr. Lewis has been a candidate for office. He should be familiar with the election laws. If someone for the charter had committed a similar offense, he would be yelling “Foul.”
[...] the past few days, allegations have been made, both on Rick’s Blog and in the comments here at Progressive Pensacola, that C. J. Lewis, an activist and former mayoral [...]
GOMB-see Rick’s reply above. Rick,(via the Independent News) along with Mark O’Brien, Reginald Dogan, Carl Wernicke, the PNJ editorial board and more have endorsed the proposed Charter. They have all done a thoughtful review of the two options and come to a reasoned decision, not one based on exaggerations and fear. CJ, on the other hand, has not. He has abused the process and his actions should be scrutinized and prosecuted if he has broken the law.
No, seriously. I am curious, too. I don’t have an opinion on the strong/boss mayor (can’t vote for it.)
But do the election laws only cover written material? (I don’t know.) Why is an opinion mailed out different than an opinion posted on a blog?
Is an opinion letter sent out by an individual “an advertisement”? Is an opinion posted on a blog “an advertisement”? Does the law address what constitutes an advertisement? What medium makes it so or what medium (print, online?)is required to have this disclaimer?
I actually think it is an interesting question. Maybe Lewis’ ‘letter’ was a small ‘newsletter’? Then his would be an article also.
Is it the act of mailing that makes it an ad?
I am not being smart. Maybe I am missing it, but I just don’t see why we should be upset that he expressed his opinion? Many are expressed on here all the time. I never see any disclaimers.
Has the “Independent” News? broken the law by not reporting their in kind contribution as a political advocacy website for the pro charter special interests?
CJ has misrepresented the truth, taken quotes out of context, and exaggerated. I do not know what kind of vendetta he has or even why – but it is clear he has one. In my opinion, he has acted in a reckless and malicous manner. There are rules by which we must all play. He, in my opinion, has grossly violated them.
The Believe in Pensacola group has run an admirable, positive and truthful campaign. Kudos to this hard working bunch of diverse citizens who only have the best interest of Pensacola in mind.
I definitely think CJ should have been more careful, but I’m not sure there is a violation here. “Independent expenditure” is defined in s. 106.011(5)(a) as “an expenditure by a person for the purpose of expressly advocating the … approval or rejection of an issue…”
While CJ’s mailout does insinuate opposition, it doesn’t include an express exhortation to vote FOR or AGAINST the proposed charter.
But I’m not a lawyer!
he broke the law. super simple if you read the handbooks….
Maxwell, you’re funny. Eddins prosecute? Now that is hilarious.
The guy did say who he was and what he wanted which is the intent of the F.S. 106.071 the way I read it. So he complied with intent.
BTW, there are hundreds of trivial useless laws that get technically and openly violated every day. I think putting a guy in jail for something like that is a big part of the problem with the U.S. We are steadily becoming something that was never envisioned or intended by our founders. Remember the word FREEDOM?
I also believe that any restriction on free speech including writings etc, are unconstitutional especially threatening jail time. But that’s just me.
If I broke an election law, it certainly wasn’t intentional. I still don’t think my flyer expressly advocates anything. I open sent it to people on the CRC and in the “Believe in Pensacola” group. You’re the only person to tell me there’s a legal issue. I’ll check with the Supervisor’s office in the morning.
I presented the facts with quotes and paraphrases some of the speakers now deny because it makes them look bad. For example, at the League of Women Voters forum DeeDee Ritchie denied she ever had a consolidated government agenda but her own words captured on tape prove otherwise.
If I’d thought this was even a close call I’d have checked with the Supervisor of Elections office. It never occurred to me that citizens can’t hand out factual information the council doesn’t want made public, or mail it out if it just gets too hard on the feet to go house-to-house trying to get people better informed.
However, now warned by you I’ll stick to talking to people in person and not send out Tuesday’s planned flyer on a different topic. I was going to encourage those who haven’t voted to stop what they’re doing, fill out the ballot and put it in the mail. Everyone should be distressed with the Supervisor’s recent prediction that only 37% will vote. As I’ve spoken with voters I find most people are very confused. Councilwoman Megan Pratt, the youngest member of the council, said it best at a recent council meeting, “There is a lot of confusion out there!”
As for the flyer, many people told me they found the information very useful because they hadn’t heard any of it from the Council or read it in the PNJ. There is a rumor going around the Crystal Spencer was bragging she had been able to suppress negative reporting in the PNJ. I don’t know if that’s true but the PNJ hasn’t printed much “news” about the CRC, its process or even the debate on the extremes between the battling political campaigns. For example, they haven’t written about the key role played by non-city residents on both sides.
People seem especially mad to learn the CRC had refused to submit its Final Report. I know you believe it’s OK because it was a council decision to look the other way. Non-city resident John Peacock best expresses the “Believe in Pensacola” view on the lack of a Final Report, “Who cares?” Well, as a city voter I care.
Dr. Haraway told me he had personal discussions with Crystal Spencer in which she directly said there was not going to be a Final Report and the CRC would only submit the proposed charter document. She said it and then did it. There are reportedly many, many, many e-mails from other CRC members to Dr. Haraway expressing concerns with the way Spencer was acting as Chairwoman.
People seem especially confused by the unchallenged “Believe in Pensacola” spin that implies voting against this particular 24 page charter document is a vote for the status quo and against progress. That couldn’t be further from the truth. If this charter fails the 1931 city charter will still need to be updated. It shouldn’t take another 21 months. The CRC worked at a very leisurely pace.
The consolidation commission on which I serve tackling a far bigger and more complicated issue started its work in June and will be done in January. The Jacksonville and Sacramento CRCs are all getting their work done in about six or seven months too. If the measure fails, there’s no reason a different proposed city charter can’t be on the November ballot.
When I was walk around District 1 and 2 talking to voters I go to great lengths to not take one side or the other. As I think you and I agree, either form of government “could” work. But the real problems, as you’ve well documented, are that the council is too large, the staff is allowed to dominate this council’s agenda, and the council spends too little time actually meeting to make decisions. The council can easily fix these problems but won’t.
As a perfect example of how dysfunctional they are, they’re only meeting one Thursday evening this month to make decisions. No wonder they get so little done. Sam Hall actually had the audacity to tell me that going to council meetings and casting votes on behalf of his District 2 constituents is not the most important part of his job.
Most people who told me they voted YES say they did so because they’re so disgusted with this council and believe anything different is better than what we have now. I don’t think the situation is “that” bad but that seems to be the public sentiment. I think they assume that term limits will clean them out soon. When I clarify that the term limits provision are not retroactive, and that the wording has some wiggle room, they appear very unhappy. Airtight eight year cumulative and retroactive term limits would probably be a big hit with the electorate.
I have done my best to focus on objectively telling people about the CRC “process.” For example, I spoke to a couple with a “No Boss Mayor” sign on their lawn. They were boresighted on one very specific concern. I explained that both fringe groups were actively trying to distort the facts or failing to reveal critical information. I cleared up their misunderstanding. They took down the sign and said they were going to vote YES. I later ran into them again and they thanked me for telling them the truth. The real test is not whether people vote YES or NO but that they know why they’re voting one way or the other.
As for Marilyn Crotty, she came in at the very tail end and the fact that she thought it was an absolutely fabulous charter document doesn’t make it so. I believe she was the person who recommended the CRC take out the part requiring the mayor and council to only appoint city residents to city boards and commissions. That was pretty important to us citizens and the CRC too, but not to her or the council.
Overall, in assessing whether this CRC process was corrupted by too many flaws and not so very hidden agendas, I’m inclined to believe people like Councilwoman Diane Mack. She wrote about the council’s too hands-off approach that allowed the CRC to jump the track and go off on its own tangent, “That left a vacuum for powerful people with an agenda to usurp the process.” I don’t know the names of the powerful people to whom she refers but I’m sure she’ll tell you when she gets back from the DIB field trip to St. Louis in place of council meetings this week.
“CJ has his right to his opinion and he could mail it to whomever he wanted but he is required by law to add the disclaimer.”
Under section 106.011(5), Florida Statutes, the term “independent expenditure” is defined as: an expenditure by a person for the purpose of EXPRESSLY ADVOCATING the election or defeat of a candidate or the approval or rejection of an issue, which expenditure is not controlled by, coordinated with, or made upon consultation with, any candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee. An expenditure for such purpose by a person having a contract with the candidate, political committee, or agent of such candidate or committee in a given election period shall not be deemed an independent expenditure. [emphasis added]
Nowhere in the document does Mr. Lewis advocate, “expressly advocate,” a vote for or against Strong Mayor.
On the first page he clearly articulates that the document is his independent observation of the Pensacola Charter Review Commision’s process.
Mr. Lewis clearly states on the first page: “Please consider them too when deciding how to vote”.
Again, nowhere in the document does Mr. Lewis “expressly advocate,” a vote for or a vote against Strong Mayor.
So how is it then he is breaking the law?
Pot:
The ad in the IN has the proper disclaimer. The articles are just that articles and don’t violate Florida Elections laws. CJ has his right to his opinion and he could mail it to whomever he wanted but he is required by law to add the disclaimer. This isn’t petty bickering, it is a matter of breaking the law.
So where is your disclaimer since this seems to be one giant ad for a strong mayor? What about the pro articles in the in weekly? What give anymore right to get your opinion out there than CJ.
This petty bickering around here is getting old. First the park was going to solve all of our problems. Now it’s a strong mayor. Seems like noone ever wants to focus on the real problems. Imagine what could be accomplished if all this time and effort was spent on something like education. I’m tired of these little power struggles among the “leaders” of our community. I’m out. I’ll let my feet do the talking.
LOL, this is classic.
CJ’s letter and flyer are so distorted that it is something that should be looked into – I know that the email was sent to several of the NO Boss PAC touting his accomplishments of getting this out to the public. CJ clearly was not listening when the City Council’s expert, Marilyn Crotty, who reviewed the document and the process had nothing but praise. She said that in all of her years of drafting charters, she had never seen such an exhaustive and intensive review. She called the process and the document fundementally sound. CJ’s baseless allegations are an insult to the 12 members who volunteered their time for nearly two years to study forms of government, take testimony and draft the document. Shame on him. He should be prosecuted.
What are the chances that Eddins would prosecute this?