Donors gave big to DeSantis' marijuana campaign after getting $10M from Hope Florida
Weeks after the DeSantis administration steered $10 million from a legal Medicaid settlement to a charity spearheaded by the first lady, the Hope Florida Foundation gave $5 million apiece to two separate organizations that gave millions to a political committee waging an anti-marijuana campaign championed by the governor.
The payments, laid out in campaign finance records and documents released to the Herald/Times by the foundation on Friday, raise questions about whether the DeSantis administration diverted Medicaid dollars through Casey DeSantis' key initiative to a political campaign.
The $10 million, deriving from a settlement with Centene, the state's largest Medicaid contractor, was split evenly between Secure Florida's Future, run by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, and Save Our Society from Drugs, a drug-prevention non-profit.
The committees sent $8.5 million that October to Keep Florida Clean, a political committee controlled by Ron DeSantis' then-chief of staff, James Uthmeier. The committee was created to defeat Amendment 3, the failed ballot initiative that tried to legalize recreational marijuana.
The settlement with Centene — which some Florida Republicans have said may have been illegal — was signed on Sept. 27. The grant proposals from Secure Florida's Future and Save Our Society from Drugs were submitted to the Hope Florida Foundation on Oct. 13 and Oct. 18, respectively. The $5 million payments from the foundation to those organizations were made that same month, according to an attorney representing the charity.
Campaign finance records show that between October and December, Keep Florida Clean diverted $10.5 million to the Republican Party of Florida, which campaigned against Amendment 3. Another $1.1 million went from the committee to the Florida Freedom Fund, which is controlled by Ron DeSantis. Uthmeier is also chairperson of the Florida Freedom Fund.
It's not clear how much of the $10 million Centene paid to the Hope Florida Foundation ended up in bank accounts for either the Republican Party of Florida or the Florida Freedom Fund. It is difficult, if not impossible, to track how dollars are spent as they move between political committees.
The flow of money from the charity to big-dollar contributors to the governor's political causes is already stirring debate in Florida's Capitol, where House Republicans are digging into how the DeSantis administration is spending public money.
Republicans have said that the administration may have broken the law by steering millions of dollars to the Hope Florida Foundation from Centene, which entered into talks with the Agency for Health Care Administration after it was overpaid for Medicaid services.
DeSantis on Thursday said the $67 million settlement, of which $10 million went to the charity, was '100% appropriate' and part of a 'good deal' the state negotiated with Centene.
State Rep. Alex Andrade, a Pensacola Republican who has been looking into the funding and operations of Hope Florida and its charity, said in a statement Friday that the use of the $10 million 'looks like criminal fraud by some of those involved.'
'The questions I now have are what did Governor DeSantis know, what did James Uthmeier know and who on earth thought this was legal, moral or ethical?' he said.
Florida House Republicans on Friday sent letters to the DeSantis administration demanding text messages and other records about a variety of state programs, including Hope Florida and its foundation.
Speaker Daniel Perez, a Miami Republican, said on former Republican U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz's show Friday night that the 'digging continues.' The foundation has not turned over records about its structure, ethics or oversight, documents that are required under state law.
'I think people are interested in knowing where the money went, how it got there, why it got there and how it was used,' Perez said.
Jeff Aaron, who became a lawyer for the Hope Florida Foundation this month, said the money paid to the foundation by Centene was not sent to political committees.
'I remain confident nothing was illegal and it is not a political organization,' he said of Secure Florida's Future, the organization overseen by the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
A spokesperson for DeSantis referred comment to his political committee. A spokesperson for DeSantis' Florida Freedom Fund said it was 'absolutely false' that any of the $10 million ended up in the governor's political committee or the effort to fight Amendment 3.
A spokesperson for Centene said the company 'had no part in or knowledge of any decision by the Hope Florida Foundation regarding the subsequent use of any Foundation funds.' The spokesperson said its donation to the foundation was directed by the Agency for Health Care Administration and approved by the Attorney General's Office.
A spokesperson for Uthemeier, whom DeSantis appointed attorney general this year, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hope Florida is the first lady's signature political initiative aiming to get Floridians off government assistance, including Medicaid, by connecting people receiving government benefits with churches and nonprofits. The Hope Florida Foundation is a charity created to financially help the Department of Children and Families carry out the program.
The foundation sent the $5 million payments to the two dark-money 501(c)(4) organizations after they submitted grant proposals. The proposals, which were released by Aaron, do not detail how the money would be spent. 'These funds would be instrumental in developing and implementing strategies that directly address the substance use crisis facing our communities,' Amy Ronshausen, executive director of Save Our Society From Drugs, wrote in the Oct. 18 grant proposal.
Read the Save Our Society from Drugs proposal
The organization board chairperson didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Mark Wilson, CEO of Florida Chamber of Commerce and its political committee, wrote in an Oct. 13 grant proposal that the money would 'raise awareness of Hope Florida's efforts within the private sector utilizing a data-centric approach and to recruit business community partners to advance this necessary cause.'
Read the Secure Florida's Future, Inc. proposal
A spokesperson for the Chamber did not address whether the money received from the Hope Florida Foundation was sent to Keep Florida Clean.
'The grant received from the Hope Florida Foundation is already making Florida better, safer, and more prosperous and will for years to come,' Wilson said in a statement.
If the money did go to political causes, the contributions could jeopardize the Hope Florida Foundation's nonprofit status.
The prohibition of nonprofit political contributions gained wide attention nine years ago when Donald Trump paid a $2,500 penalty to the IRS and refunded his nonprofit foundation the $25,000 it gave to Pam Bondi's reelection campaign for Florida attorney general.
A charity such as the Hope Florida Foundation can make political contributions to fight a ballot initiative but it cannot be a 'substantial part' of the charity's 'activity,' said Shanna Ports, senior legal counsel for the campaign finance watchdog, Campaign Legal Center.
If the charity violates those rules, it 'could lose' its tax-exempt status, Ports said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
23 minutes ago
- E&E News
Senate axes regulation-slashing measure from megabill
A major deregulatory proposal that Republican hardliners had hoped to include in their party-line megabill was cut in the Senate. Absent from a new section of the GOP budget reconciliation bill released Thursday is language from the 'Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,' which would have given Congress final approval over certain agency rules and would have expanded Congress' ability to undo rules already in place. Initial versions of the House reconciliation bill included parts of the 'REINS Act.' But House leadership slashed it at the eleventh hour, replacing it instead with a blanket appropriation for the White House's Office of Management and Budget to conduct deregulatory actions. Advertisement The Senate Judiciary Committee's portion of the megabill, released Thursday night, included no mention of 'REINS Act,' and also excluded the funding the House wanted for the budget office.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Tennessee judge will hear arguments about releasing Kilmar Abrego Garcia from pretrial detention
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, on Friday will stand before a Tennessee judge who'll decide whether he can be released while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges. Before the hearing began in Nashville, Abrego Garcia's wife told a crowd outside a church that Thursday marked three months since the Trump administration 'abducted and disappeared my husband and separated him from our family.' Her voice choked with emotion, Jennifer Vasquez Sura said she saw her husband for the first time on Thursday. She said, 'Kilmar wants you to have faith,' and asked the people supporting him and his family ''to continue fighting, and I will be victorious because God is with us.'' Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador who had been living in the United States for more than a decade before he was wrongfully deported by the Republican administration in March. The expulsion violated a 2019 U.S. immigration judge's order that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he likely faced gang persecution there. While the Trump administration described the mistaken removal as 'an administrative error,' officials have continued to justify it by insisting Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang . His wife and attorneys have denied the allegations, saying he's simply a construction worker and family man. Trump's administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last week to face criminal charges related to what it said was a human smuggling operation that transported immigrants across the country. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with eight passengers. His lawyers have called the allegations 'preposterous.' U.S. attorneys have asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes to keep Abrego Garcia in jail, describing him as a danger to the community and a flight risk. Abrego Garcia's attorneys disagree, pointing out he was already wrongly detained in a notorious Salvadoran prison thanks to government error and arguing due process and 'basic fairness' require him to be set free. The charges against Abrego Garcia are human smuggling. But in their request to keep Abrego Garcia in jail, U.S. attorneys also accuse him of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims, although he is not charged with such crimes. The U.S. attorneys also accuse Abrego Garcia of taking part in a murder in El Salvador. However, none of those allegations is part of the charges against him, and at his initial appearance June 6, the judge warned prosecutors she cannot detain someone based solely on allegations. One of Abrego Garcia's attorneys last week characterized the claims as a desperate attempt by the Trump administration to justify the mistaken deportation three months after the fact. 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' private attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. In a Wednesday court filing, Abrego Garcia's public defenders argued the government is not even entitled to a detention hearing — much less detention — because the charges against him aren't serious enough. Although the maximum sentence for smuggling one person is 10 years, and Abrego Garcia is accused of transporting hundreds of people over nearly a decade, his defense attorneys point out there's no minimum sentence. The average sentence for human smuggling in 2024 was just 15 months, according to court filings. The decision to charge Abrego Garcia criminally prompted the resignation of Ben Schrader, who was chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee. He posted about his departure on social media on the day of the indictment, writing, 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.' He did not directly address the indictment and declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press. However, a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter confirmed the connection. Although Abrego Garcia lives in Maryland, he's being charged in Tennessee based on a May 2022 traffic stop for speeding in the state. The Tennessee Highway Patrol body camera video of the encounter that was released to the public last month shows a calm exchange between officers and Abrego Garcia. It also shows the officers discussing among themselves their suspicions of human smuggling before sending him on his way. One of the officers says, 'He's hauling these people for money.' Another says Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in an envelope. Abrego Garcia was not charged with any offense at the traffic stop. Sandoval-Moshenberg, the private attorney, said in a statement after the video's release that he saw no evidence of a crime in the footage. Meanwhile, the lawsuit over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation isn't over. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have asked a federal judge in Maryland to impose fines against the Trump administration for contempt, arguing that it flagrantly ignored court orders for several weeks to return him. The Trump administration said it will ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it followed the judge's order to return him to the U.S. ___ This story has been corrected to show the Trump administration said that the human smuggling operation transported immigrants across the country, not that it brought immigrants into the country illegally. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
