John Morgan lays out campaign blueprint for possible Florida governor run
John Morgan, the famous attorney who runs the nation's largest injury firm and is known for his 'For the People' billboards and ads, has been teasing for months that he may run for Florida governor in 2026.
He wasn't definitive Wednesday after talking for nearly an hour at the Capital Tiger Bay Club in Tallahassee. But in profanity-laden remarks interspersed with jokes and slams against Republicans and Democrats alike, he laid out what could be a campaign blueprint.
Morgan criticized Democrats — a party he once donated huge sums to — as well as Gov. Ron DeSantis and a Legislature he said cared more about special interests than helping with the problems residents are dealing with. He said, 'I believe that whether you're on the far left or the far right that the defining problem in our country today is income inequality. People can't afford to live.'
A Morgan candidacy would jolt a contest that already features GOP Rep. Byron Donalds and probably David Jolly, a former Republican representative who recently became a Democrat. First lady Casey DeSantis remains a possibility and sidestepped a question about a bid during an event held in Brandon on Wednesday with the governor.
Morgan, who is extremely wealthy, has already proven to be a successful campaigner as the architect and primary funder of ballot initiatives that raised the state's minimum wage and legalized medical marijuana.
When it came to running for governor, Morgan said he is willing to spend time and money to mount a campaign and said James Carville once told him that a governor 'can do more good than any other person in the country.' But he admitted he goes back and forth about the idea.
'There are moments where I go, you know what? I could do it. I could do it. And then when I'm sitting in Hawaii with the marijuana cigarettes and a glass of rosé and then,' Morgan said before pausing, noting the age of newly selected Pope Leo XIV and adding he's 'deep, deep, deep' in the fourth quarter of life at the age of 69.
Morgan told reporters, however, that he is serious about a potential run. But the Kentucky native said he wants to see how other potential candidates fare down the back 'stretch' before jumping in. He acknowledged — without giving any names — that if certain people run then he might be motivated to get into the contest.
The attorney has tremendous name recognition already and said that as someone who has mounted a successful initiative campaign, 'I have an advantage that nobody, that nobody else really has.' He said he can afford to wait.
'I think I'd rather reach running a sprint than running a marathon,' he said. 'I'd rather have a three-month window than an 18-month window.'
Morgan says if he does run, it would not be as an independent, and he was skeptical of state Sen. Jason Pizzo's efforts to run with no party affiliation, saying Americans like to be on a team. He is moving ahead with plans to launch a third party that he said is needed to represent those in the middle who are not aligned with the far-left and far-right wings of the Democratic and Republican Parties.
'We're stuck in the middle and we don't have a voice, any voice, but yet we have a lot to say but we're paralyzed,' Morgan said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press 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
Time Magazine
30 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump
The breakdown in relations between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk has played out over social media in spectacular fashion, with the two engaging in a tit-for-tat spat. The row initially started over politics. Musk expressed his vehement disapproval of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and encouraging people to 'kill the bill.' Meanwhile, Trump maintained that the fall-out was prompted by Musk being upset over the removal of electric vehicle subsidies —a provision that made Tesla vehicles more affordable. But the fight has since taken a far more personal turn, bolstered by Musk's allegation that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk said in a post shared via his social media platform, X. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this. The accusation has spurred Democrats to chase the full unsealing of the Epstein files. California Rep. Robert Garcia and Massachusetts Rep. Stephen F. Lynch—Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—sent a letter on June 5 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Kash Patel. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' read the letter titled 'Is Trump Suppressing The Epstein Files?' The White House responded, saying that the move by the Oversight Committee members was 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' Here's what to know about the Epstein files and the renewed push to declassify them following Musk's allegation. What do we know about the Epstein files so far? On Feb. 27, Bondi released more than 100 pages of declassified documents related to Epstein—as part of the Trump Administration's vow to be more transparent regarding the high-profile case. During the presidential election, Trump promised to appease the clamoring for the alleged 'client list' of Epstein's since his arrest and subsequent death by suicide in 2019. Though Bondi called this the 'first phase' of declassified files, people were underwhelmed by the published pages, as much of the text had been redacted. Bondi's release included Epstein's 'black book,' which had previously been published. It featured names like Trump and former President Bill Clinton, but as the New York Times reported, there were people in the book with whom Epstein had never even met, and thus listed names are not necessarily connected to Epstein's activities. One of the only never-before-seen documents included in the release was an 'Evidence List' of catalogued evidence obtained by investigators. Bondi blamed the FBI for the fact that the report was incomplete, suggesting in a published letter to Patel that the FBI had more information related to Epstein. Bondi ordered Patel to deliver the rest of the investigation documents and 'conduct an immediate investigation' to understand why she had only received parts of the files. There is much discussion as to whether a fully-fledged 'Epstein client list' even exists. Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider's legal correspondent who has covered the Epstein case for years, said via social media on Feb. 27: 'I should also point out that the 'Jeffrey Epstein client list' does not exist and makes no sense on multiple levels (you think he made a list???). But if Pam Bondi wants to prove me wrong, I welcome it.' Will the Musk allegations prompt the release of further Epstein files? Musks' allegations have brought the Epstein files back into the spotlight, but there were already calls for them to be published in full. In April, Trump was asked by a reporter about when the next phase of the files are due to be released, to which he responded: 'I don't know. I'll speak to the Attorney General about that. I really don't know.' Since then, Democrats have continued to push for more documents to be released. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York released a statement in May, 'demanding that [Bondi] promptly release the Jeffrey Epstein Files in full.' Spurred by Musk's allegation, Democrats including Garcia, Goldman, and Lynch are now renewing these calls for more transparency. But it remains to be seen whether or not the pressure will be enough for Bondi, Patel, or Trump to provide more answers. What do we know about Trump's relationship with Epstein? Trump's connection to Epstein dates back decades. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, he famously said that Epstein was 'a lot of fun to be with.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump told the reporter. In July 2019, NBC News' TODAY released unearthed video footage believed to be from 1992, which showed Trump greeting Epstein at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The two men could be seen laughing as they engaged in conversation. After Epstein's 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Trump made strides to distance himself. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in 2019, Trump said: 'I had a falling out with him [Epstein]. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.'
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants
A group of nearly 100 House Democrats is calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore tens of millions of dollars in federal family planning grants to more than a dozen organizations that have been frozen for more than two months. In a letter to Kennedy sent on Friday and seen first by The Hill, 95 lawmakers said the organizations which had their Title X funding frozen on March 31 — including nine Planned Parenthood clinics — are still in the dark about the status of their grants. At the time, the clinics said they received letters from the administration saying the grants were being 'temporarily withheld' due to possible civil right violations and President Trump's executive orders prohibiting the promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and 'taxpayer subsidization of open borders.' More than two months later, the lawmakers said the grantees 'remain without funding and have received no communication from the administration regarding the status of the investigations, the expected timeline, or the future of their funding.' HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'Congress has already appropriated these funds, and the administration has a responsibility to distribute them without undue delay or obstruction, ensuring that critical care is not disrupted for millions of people who rely on Title X services,' the group of lawmakers wrote. The letter was led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), and signed by 91 other Democrats. Title X is the country's only federal program dedicated to providing affordable birth control and other sexual and reproductive health care to low-income Americans and has done so since the 1970s. The lawmakers timed the letter to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy regarding contraception and reproductive decisions. 'However, due to the actions of this administration, reproductive freedom is under threat,' the lawmakers wrote. The first Trump administration prohibited providers from receiving Title X funding if they mentioned abortion or referred patients for abortions. It also required clinics to construct separate facilities for the procedure and other services. More than a dozen grantees, including all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, left the program in protest because of the rule. The Biden administration reversed Trump's Title X rule in 2021.
