Democrat who fell victim to ‘ghost candidate' scheme running for attorney general
Five years after losing his reelection bid to the Florida Senate amid a 'ghost candidate' scheme, José Javier Rodríguez is running for Attorney General.
'For decades, powerful interests have rigged the system to serve themselves while everyday working Floridians are left paying more but getting less,' Rodríguez said in a June 2 statement.
'I'm running to be the People's Lawyer to keep us safe, root out corruption, and go after those who make backroom deals in Tallahassee to pass costs onto us; I'm running to give families, workers and homeowners some relief.'
In 2020, Rodríguez, a Miami Democrat, lost by 34 votes to Republican Ileana Garcia out of more than 210,000 ballots cast.
Alex Rodriguez, a no-party-affiliated candidate, was paid by GOP operatives to be a 'ghost candidate' to siphon votes from José Javier Rodríguez, according to prosecutors. Garcia has said she had no knowledge of the scheme and was never accused of any wrongdoing.
Frank Artiles, a Miami Republican who served in the House and Senate, was later sent to jail for paying Alex Rodríguez. Two other no-party state senate candidates that year were paid by outside interests to divert votes away from the Democratic candidates, but didn't receive enough votes to make a difference in the outcome.
As a senator, Rodríguez was one of the most vocal about tackling climate change and critical of investor-owned utilities in the state, particularly Florida Power & Light. He filed legislation to allow homeowners to sell solar power to their tenants, something FPL lobbied against.
FPL's then-CEO Eric Silagy directed two vice presidents to 'make his life a living hell,' referring to Rodríguez, in a 2019 email that was later uncovered. FPL, though, said they had no involvement in the ghost candidate scheme.
But reporting by the Orlando Sentinel uncovered the utility's connection to Matrix LLC, a consulting firm that paid for mailer ads boosting Alex Rodriguez.
'I've never been afraid to take on tough fights, whether it's holding powerful corporations accountable, challenging broken systems, or defending everyday Floridians,' José Javier Rodríguez said.
'The law should protect people, not the powerful. So let me be clear: as the People's Lawyer, if you're dangerous or scamming Floridians, no matter how powerful you are, I'm coming for you.'
Rodriguez is the only Democrat in the Attorney General race so far, but he faces a fierce challenge on the campaign trail.
Florida has turned into a safe state for Republicans in statewide races, with the GOP racking up a 1.2 million active voter registration advantage over Democrats in the last four years. Even when Democrats outnumbered Republicans, a Democrat has not won the Florida Attorney General's office since 1998, when Bob Butterworth was reelected.
On the Republican side, James Uthmeier, Gov. Ron DeSantis' former chief of staff, was appointed to the position in February. He replaced Ashley Moody, whom DeSantis appointed to replace Marco Rubio in the U.S. Senate. Rubio left that job to be U.S. secretary of state under President Donald Trump.
Uthmeier, though, might not have an easy ride to the GOP nomination; there's still a possibility former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Shalimar, could enter the race.
Gray Rohrer is a reporter with the USA TODAY Network-Florida Capital Bureau. He can be reached at grohrer@gannett.com. Follow him on X: @GrayRohrer.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Democrat José Javier Rodríguez running for Florida Attorney General
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.
Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Business Insider
17 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump's AI czar says UBI-style cash payments are 'not going to happen'
Americans probably won't be getting a universal basic income as long as President Donald Trump's AI czar has a say in the matter. David Sacks, the cofounder of Craft Ventures and a member of the so-called " PayPal Mafia," which includes Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, is now a top White House policy advisor for AI. It's an important role as rapid advances in AI bring about generational changes in how the world lives and works. The technology is already reshaping the job market, as chatbots like ChatGPT begin to do the work of entry-level employees. Those at the forefront of the AI revolution have long warned about the risk AI poses to jobs, and have called for a universal basic income to soften the blow. A UBI is a government program that distributes no-strings-attached checks to all residents to spend how they please. Numerous cities and states are already experimenting with its humble cousin, a guaranteed basic income, which distributes checks to specific populations in need. The idea has a long history, and support for these kinds of programs has skyrocketed at the local level in recent years. Any consideration of a basic income at the federal level, however, will likely have to wait. Sacks is not a fan. The AI czar said on X this week that such government "welfare" is a "fantasy." "The future of AI has become a Rorschach test where everyone sees what they want. The Left envisions a post-economic order in which people stop working and instead receive government benefits," Sacks wrote. "In other words, everyone on welfare. This is their fantasy; it's not going to happen." Although reports from recipients who participate in basic income programs are overwhelmingly positive, they have faced political pushback. Last year, Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and similar opposition efforts have gained traction in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in several states have argued that the checks increase reliance on the government and dissuade recipients from working. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman helped fund one of the largest basic income studies, which found, in part, that it encouraged recipients to work harder. Elon Musk, who until recently was the face of Trump's effort to reduce government spending, has said a basic income will likely play a role in future economies as AI continues to rapidly develop. Sacks' comments came as another prominent AI leader, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, called for not just a universal basic income, but a "universal high income" at SXSW in London this week. When asked about AI's impact on jobs, Hassabis said there would be a "huge amount of change," but that "new, even better" jobs could replace affected positions and boost productivity. "Beyond that, we may need things like universal high income or some way of distributing all the additional productivity that AI will produce in the economy," Hassabis said.
