Large campaign signs with the disclaimers required by Florida law deliberately cut off. Several unlawful cash contributions, one of them from a 27-year old Latvian aspiring model and student who is barred by federal law from contributing to any political campaigns in the US. And the candidate is also barred by that same law from accepting her contribution.
If that storyline was in a movie script, it might be rejected as being too implausible even for a rom-com. But these are the latest developments in the campaign of Grant Izzi, a candidate for St. Pete City Commission in District 2. Election day is March 11th.
Last month, the Tampa Bay Guardian (TBG) reported that Izzi’s campaign violated two parts of this 2008 US Department of Defense Directive on “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces.” Izzi is a retired Air Force officer, and the directive also applies to retired members. A key rule in the directive, a rule that Izzi violated, is summarized by the graphic shown, taken from the 442nd Fighter Wing website.
But Izzi now appears to have violated multiple state and federal laws as well. The first one is Florida Statute 106.09, which prohibits a person from giving more than a total of $50 in cash contributions to any campaign during an election, as well as prohibits a candidate from receiving such cash contributions.
Despite this law, Izzi’s own so-called G2 and G3 campaign treasurer reports filed with the city show cash contributions over the legal limit of $50 from 13 separate people.
In his first campaign treasure report filing in early January, Izzi listed a $100 contribution from himself as being from a check. Izzi might claim that his latest filings were mistaken, and file amended reports to show that the 13 over-the-limit cash contributions in fact were made by check. If so, he would have to explain why he understood the distinction between cash and check in his January report, but not in early February in his G2 report, only to once again understand that distinction a week later in his G3 report.
One thing Izzi might have a harder time explaining is why he accepted a contribution from Liene Leitana, who is listed in his G2 report. A simple web search for her name, along with her accented English, should have given the Izzi campaign reason to ask if she is a US citizen, or a green card holder, or neither.
Asking about citizenship status or visa status is an important question for any campaign to ask, because federal law makes it illegal for “a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from foreign nationals “for any Federal, State, or local election” unless that foreign national possesses a green card (52 U.S.C. § 30121).
When reached, Lietane said she has a student visa (not a green card) and didn’t know she couldn’t donate. She further stated that she will be reaching out to the Grant Izzi campaign to reverse the donation. Because Lietane says she didn’t knowingly break the law, took immediate to action correct her mistake, and the small amount involved, she will likely not face legal consequences. Especially since the donation now in fact has been reversed.
Izzi’s latest campaign finance report, his so-called G4 report (filed within the last 24 hours), shows that he returned the contribution to Lietane. However, Izzi did so incorrectly, coding it as “RMB” under expenditures. Instead, Izzi should have coded it under contributions as “REF” (refund) as a negative amount — see the contribution instructions for the form in question.
While this incident of unlawful foreign money in the Izzi campaign is now effectivley mooted, it still raises questions. It is one thing that a recent arrival in the US didn’t know US federal campaign finance law pertaining to foreign funds in US elections. It’s a completely different matter that the political campaign of a retired US Air Force colonel didn’t know.
As a practical matter and for further explication of this topic for our readers: the Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn’t seek enforcement action in cases when individuals or campaigns “unwittingly” ran afoul of the law in question. When the FEC does seek enforcement action, it’s in matters involving large amounts of money and/or straw donors.
Izzi’s large campaign signs around St. Pete Beach with the statutorily required disclaimer missing are a violation of a different law. The violations consist of not having the “paid political advertisement” disclaimer on the signs, as required by Florida Statute 106.143(1)(a). The purpose of that disclaimer is to inform voters that the communication is a political ad, and also tell them who paid for the ad. The same law applies to TV and print ads.
The title of that law is “Political advertisements circulated prior to election; requirements” and the disclaimer requirement is the very first thing mentioned.
The requirement is also on page 38 of the candidate handbook that the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections publishes, and that is made available to every candidate in city elections.
The image shows one of Izzi’s disclaimer-less signs in front of a business in St. Pete Beach. There are approximately a half dozen such signs, all essentially the same, all without the required disclaimer.
The image also shows how these graphics originally looked, as seen in one of Izzi’s campaign videos. The disclaimer can be seen in the white border and reads “Paid by Grant Izzi for St. Pete Beach City Commission.” This is the same disclaimer that appears at the bottom of his campaign website, and it complies with state law.
Why would a campaign deliberately cut off a disclaimer that is required by law? Because Izzi did not respond to questions for our first article, not even with a “no comment,” we did not reach out to him for comment for this article.
However, a source with knowledge of the matter said that several property owners who had Izzi signs on their property received code enforcement letters from the city citing St. Pete Beach city ordinance 26.25(g).
That ordinance limits the size of political signs on non-residential properties to 12 square feet in area. In order to comply with city code and avoid fines, the Izzi campaign reduced the size of the signs by simply cutting off portions. Later, the required disclaimer was added using stickers (shown in photo).
It is worth noting code enforcement action (including fines) is against the property owner, not the campaign. However, any fines issued by the Florida Election Commission over the absence of a disclaimer would be paid for by Izzi himself.
Is all this a case of a first-time candidate making understandable mistakes? Even when those mistakes are violations of state and federal law? Or is this a case of “Kandidate Klutz” whose inattention to detail should raise questions among voters?
As always….the Guardian reports and the readers decide. Please like our Facebook page to find out when we publish new stories.
