Editorial: Charlie Crist an Indian giver?
Seminoles’ Las Vegas-style gambling accord
demands thorough public review in Legislature
By TCPalm Staff
Stuart News
© 2007 Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Charlie Crist, the self-anointed “People’s Governor,” has decided that he, and he alone, is entitled to negotiate a gambling agreement with the Seminole Tribe.
The “compact” may be the best deal available. But since it was arrived at behind closed doors, Floridians may be skeptical. Crist fueled that skepticism when he backed off his pledge to submit the agreement to the Legislature for ratification.
If ever a governmental decision cried out for full and open debate, this is it.
The governor is on shaky ground when he contends that he must negotiate an Indian gaming arrangement. In a recent Texas case, courts ruled that the U.S. Department of the Interior did not have the right to dictate terms or deadlines to the state.
In Florida, Broward County’s 2004 vote to legalize gambling faces a court challenge, potentially undermining the tribal gaming expansion. House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, is challenging Crist’s unilateral action. The speaker’s odds appear to be good: In at least five other states where governors entered into tribal compacts, legislatures prevailed in their bids to overturn those deals.
Opposition is bipartisan. Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, branded the deal “a very bad compact.” And a member of Crist’s Cabinet, Attorney General Bill McCollum, says he intends to resist any Interior Department orders to broaden Indian gaming in this state.
Under the constitutional separation of powers, Florida’s legislative branch deserves its say. Yet lawmakers must be careful not to abuse the process. They must resist attempts by politically connected racetracks and off-track-betting facilities to grab their own piece of the action in an effort to turn their struggling venues into Las Vegas-style “racinos.”
Claiming that the Seminole compact could further undermine their business and result in no net revenue gain for the state, track operators say Crist “sold out cheaply.” That might be, but can two wrongs make a right? Floridians must have no illusions about the Seminole Tribe. This is not some benighted band scratching out a living from penny-ante bingo games. The tribe generates about $1.2 billion a year at its seven state casinos and, since purchasing the Hard Rock franchise for $965 million last year, its gaming operations have gone global.
Notably, the Seminoles’ two previous revenue-sharing pacts ended in court battles over billions of dollars the tribe owed to companies that built their three largest casinos. The tribe settled out of court each time.
There are far too many questions and too many potential legal landmines to let this latest agreement stand without adequate open debate by the people Floridians elected to represent them.
Governor, House speaker set stakes higher
By J. Taylor Rushing
Capital Bureau Chief
© The Florida Times-Union
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
TALLAHASSEE - For years, Charlie Crist has been an expert at putting a happy face on the thorniest of relationships. But this year he may have met his match - from a fellow Republican.
Earlier this month, House Speaker Marco Rubio took a long-running dispute with Crist to the Florida Supreme Court, directing House attorneys to file a petition to block the 25-year, $100 million-per-year gaming compact Crist signed with the Seminole Indian tribe. An outspoken opponent of gambling expansion, Rubio wants the state's top judges to declare that the Legislature must ratify the deal, which is unlikely in the Republican-controlled Legislature.
But in a town that thrives on conflict, the challenge has deeper implications - namely, the continuation of a consistent rift with the governor over major policy issues. Although gambling is perhaps the best example, Crist and Rubio have clashed this year over property tax reform, insurance reform, stem cell research and budget issues.
"What we're seeing, in many ways, is a battle for the future of the Republican Party in Florida," said Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller of Cooper City, a longtime friend of Crist. "Charlie is trying to lead the party toward the center, where the voters are, but Marco is trying to lead to the right, to the hard core where things were under Jeb Bush."
Ironically, Geller said state Democrats may join sides with Rubio, to establish the principle of legislative authority. Senate President Ken Pruitt is being urged to file a similar lawsuit against Crist, Geller said, and if Pruitt refuses Democrats may file suit on their own.
Rubio, a politically ambitious Miami legislator, was refusing interviews. But spokeswoman Jill Chamberlin said his differences with Crist were not personal or unusual.
"This is only about differing principles," Chamberlin said. "People expect debate in state government. That's the whole reason we have checks and balances."
But former Senate President Tom Lee, now a Tampa-area developer, said while Crist and Rubio's clashes seem polite, the stakes are significant for Floridians.
"This was an extraordinary measure for the speaker to take, but it is an enormous policy decision for Florida," Lee said. "This is a radical expansion of gambling that's being proposed, and that makes it a very, very important policy decision for the Republican Party and all conservatives in Florida."
Crist's agreement with the Seminole Indians allows the tribe to add Las Vegas-style slot machines and card games such as blackjack at their seven casinos downstate. The governor has said federal officials are about to allow the move anyway, and that the state should at least retain some revenue and regulation authority - a claim with which Rubio disagrees.
The governor struck his usual genial tone in response to Rubio's lawsuit.
"He has the right to do what he wants to do," Crist said. "I have great respect, as you know, with the separation of powers. I think it's important and I look forward to the court making a decision."
Such differences between legislative leaders can lead to special legislative sessions, which cost taxpayers $40,000 per day. And they can delay significant legislation, such as the recent breakdowns in negotiations over whether to extend Florida's no-fault auto insurance requirements or how deep to cut local property tax bills.
But Geller and Lee both point out there is plenty of precedent for thorny relationships in the state's highest political circles. Former Senate President Jim King and former House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, both Republicans, had two years' worth of conflicts that sometimes thwarted legislation. Lee and Bush also had several public arguments, and former Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings even once sued Bush over a policy difference when she was Senate president.
Most notably, in 2003 King held the state Senate together in defiance against Bush over medical malpractice lawsuit limits. The resulting impasse forced several special sessions which dragged on for months. Last week, King predicted that the atmosphere at the Capitol would only grow more divided in 2008, with both Crist and Rubio more than a year into their terms and a fresh election cycle approaching.
"These things are politics, and it's healthy politics," King said last week. "You don't want to elect rubber stamps. There are times and places when your own personal philosophy needs to be established, and if you differ from someone else in a position of leadership, you have the right or even the obligation to speak out."
Lee said while Crist and Rubio appear to have kept their disagreements civil, the differences between King and Byrd once threatened to become far more serious.
"I remember some pretty tense times," Lee said. "King once said to me, 'I keep turning the other cheek when it comes to Johnnie. But I'm running out of cheeks.' "