Candidates Address Campaign Finance and Conflict of Interest

From Marco Island to Capitol Hill, voters may wonder how campaign contributions influence government decisions. 

That question was raised after Marco Island City Councilman Greg Folley, a Republican candidate for Florida State House of Representatives District 81, voted on two controversial matters affecting business owners on Marco Island who contributed to Folley’s campaign. 

These types of government decisions occur almost daily on city, county, state, and local levels. That leads people, including political opponents, to wonder about ethics and campaign financing. 

Officials from the Florida Commission on Ethics, responsible for enforcing such matters, look to the Florida Statute and an earlier ethics opinion that allows for government board members to vote on matters involving people who have made contributions to their campaign in most cases — unless that public officer would gain something personally.

“Section 112.313 prohibits a public officer from accepting a gift or favor which would cause a reasonably prudent person to be influenced in the discharge of official duties,” according to the summary of Florida Commission on Ethics opinion 75-181, sent to this reporter by Lynn Blais, chief administrator for the Florida Commission on Ethics. 

Further, there is not a voting conflict created where an officer is faced with a vote relating to a campaign contributor, for such contributions have been disclosed in public record pursuant to [Florida Statute] s106.07, the ethics summary stated.

The Ethics Commission’s summary goes on to say that the requirement of a disclosure on CE Form 4 would be required if a council member or other public officer had a private gain. 

Council approved on July 22 at least two matters related to controversial projects on Marco Island. One of these included voting on a variance to make way for widened pavement at an already approved use of a restaurant drive-thru on a currently vacant commercial lot near Marco Island Cemetery at the intersection of Bald Eagle Drive and Elkcam Circle. The other Council decision allowed for multilevel expansion projects along a section of Collier Boulevard, which could benefit the Oliverio family’s businesses, among others. The Oliverio family and their businesses have contributed to and supported Folley’s campaign for District 81 with large campaign signs near their establishments. Folley has no private interest in those businesses, he said. Therefore, he did not and could not abstain from voting on their projects, said Folley.

Folley is running against Yvette Benarroch (R-Marco Island) in the August 20 Republican Primary. The winner will then face Democrat Charles Work in the General Election.

“In my opinion, any individual with principles, integrity, and ethics would disclose campaign contributions and recuse themselves from related votes. Failing to do so demonstrates a lack of respect for the responsibilities entrusted to them by the electorate,” said Benarroch. 

“Just because it’s not illegal does not mean it’s not unethical,” she added.

However, Folley pointed out that his campaign contributions need only be part of the public record. 

If he has no personal conflict of interest in the projects, he has a responsibility to vote on them, Folley said. 

Despite several thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the Oliverio family and their businesses, which add up to more than $10,000, Folley’s campaign is costing more than $400,000 thus far. Much of that cost is paid for by Folley individually.

“I’m not for sale at any price,” said Folley. “I want to be transparent. I want to explain my thinking,” he added.

His decision to approve both of these was based on his duties, not based on any personal gain or loss, he said. 

Though both matters were controversial, the aspects he was voting on were not the areas of primary contention. Many people didn’t want a drive-thru restaurant on the vacant lot near a serene cemetery. However, New Life Community Church had sold their vacant land that is zoned commercial, so Marco Island City Council wasn’t voting to approve the drive-thru for the current landowner, but rather whether to allow for an expanded width of the driveway to aid traffic flow, said Folley.

Similarly, allowing the multiple stories added to existing buildings along Collier Boulevard required Council to vote in a way consistent with the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 

There would be no change in the final decisions had Folley abstained or voted otherwise.

His contributors are not persuading his decision but rather they are contributing because they agree with his stance on issues, including generally, the government should get out of the way of business prosperity and not infringe on landowners’ rights, which is why he garnered endorsement by the Chamber of Commerce and others, he said.

“I have a duty to vote. I can’t abstain willy-nilly,” said Folley. 

“Most of the opposition didn’t have to do with the variance but with the project itself,” he added. “That train had already left the station,” said Folley. 

“They could put a high-rise and roof bar if they want. They’re talking about a one-story drive thru restaurant,” he said.

There were no workforce housing requirements made on the Council decision to allow additional levels to be added onto the existing buildings in the area between Amazon Court and Saturn Court along Collier Boulevard, although the businesses there may choose to use it as such, said Folley. 

“People contribute to politicians for an incredibly wide range of reasons. One is that they agree with you politically. That’s constitutionally protected,” said Folley.

Even if it’s not illegal for Folley and others to vote on matters directly affecting their campaign donors, Benarroch said public officials have a moral obligation to do so.

“Character, ethics should be the core of public service. We should have ethical integrity and be transparent. There is nothing wrong with taking money from donors, just disclose it, so it’s not perceived you’re being bought,” said Benarroch. 

Campaign signs outside the properties with matters going before Council members demonstrated bold, unashamed conflict of interest, Benarroch said.

Most people don’t know how to find out who contributed to campaigns, she added. 

Dark Money in Politics

Campaign financing becomes more challenging for many people to track through political action committees. A PAC may be organized to represent a corporation or cause. Super PACs began after 2010, allowing unlimited amounts from nearly unlimited sources to contribute to campaigns, though they may not give directly to a candidate’s campaign, they may spend on advertising or communications that influence outcomes. Super PAC and PAC contributions can be researched to some degree on fec.gov. OpenSecrets.org is another resource. Their research indicates this election cycle is looking to have the most money in history coming from undisclosed contributors, including shell companies or dark money groups, such as 501(c)(4) nonprofits that are often social groups not required to disclose their donors. These include groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, as well as many lesser known nonprofits.

The leading cause for this trend of undisclosed contributions to elections is the 2010 Supreme Court decision, 5-4, in favor of Citizens United over the Federal Election Commission. The decision claimed that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from restricting expenditures to political campaigns for corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions and other associations. Prior to 2010, before Citizens United won that case, groups were required to disclose their donors. 

Florida Weakened Ethics Commissions Power in 2024

Senate Bill 7014 recently limited the power of the Florida Commission on Ethics and local ethics commissions, such as the City of Naples ethics commission, from investigating anonymous tips, among other changes. The positive could be that such accusations cannot easily be abused by political opponents. However, the risk is that many times whistleblowers are in situations where disclosing their identity at the outset could risk their ability to come forward without harming their own livelihoods.