READY FOR March 22, 2023 Hon. Glenton Gilzean, Jr. Florida Commission on Ethics P.O. Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, FL 32317-5709 RE: Frivolous Complaint of Alleged Ethies Violations by Govemor DeSantis and Ready for Ron. Dear Mr. Gilzean, I write on bebalf of Ready for Ron (“RFR”), a federally registered, unauthorized, non- connected hybrid political committee which seeks to “draft” Govemor Ron DeSantis to become and remain a candidate for President of the United States in the 2024 election. RFR believes Governor DeSantis is the only person with the temperament, judgment, military experience, and devotion to freedom and our nation’s Founding principles necessary to serve successfully as President. Governor DeSantis is the only potential candidate who will punish criminals, end illegal immigration, combat inflation, slash taxes, defeat wokeness, deter foreign adversaries, repeal burdensome federal regulations, and otherwise restore America’s greatness. He also has a demonstrated record of consistently winning elections, with one of the most resounding re-election victories since President Ronald Reagan. SUMMARY On or about March 14, 2023, Taylor Budowich—the titular head of Make America Great Again PAC—filed a frivolous complaint against Govemor Ron DeSantis with the Florida Commission on Ethics (“Commission”). The Complaint baselessly alleges RFR made illegal expenditures as a lobbyist and provided illegal gifts to Governor DeSantis in violation of the Florida Constitution and Florida’s ethics laws. All of the Complaint’s allegations against Governor DeSantis arise from his completely legal public appearances and meetings, which are commonplace for state Governors whose success have generated widespread public interest and national attention. See Compl. at 2-3. " Since RFR was not involved with Governor DeSantis’ book tou, it will not specifically discuss the Complaints allegations arising from it, Much ofthis leter's analysis, however, is equally applicable to those book tour claims, revealing the same fatal flaws in the underlying frivolous Complaint.judowich’s allegations against RFR are similarly meritless to the point of sanetionable. As an initial matter, the publicly released version of the Complaint appears to violate Fla, Admin, Code § 34-5.001(2) and require immediate dismissal because it is unswom (perhaps because Budowich was unwilling to present its pervasive lies under oath). The Complaint also alleges Govemor DeSantis violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), see Compl. at 11-12. This Commission flatly lacks jurisdiction over such claims. Fla. Stat. § 112.322(1). Only the FEC has jurisdiction over alleged civil violations of the FECA, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(@)(2). More importantly, none of RFR’s conduct violates the state laws cited in the Complaint. RER is not a lobbyist and was not required to register as a lobbyist under Florida law. It neither offered nor provided any gifts or expenditures to Govemor DeSantis, and never lobbied or otherwise sought to influence him to engage in any official acts as Govemor of Florida. In addition, RER does not wish, and has never wished, for Governor DeSantis to resign from the office of Govemor, and has never attempted to persuade him to do so. In any event, all of RFR’s activities in attempting to persuade Govemor DeSantis to run for President are govemed exclusively by the FECA, which preempts Florida law in this context, RER neither provided any funds (or anything else of value) to Governor DeSantis, nor allowed him to exereise any influence or control over its decisions over how to spend its funds. Accordingly, any funds RFR independently decided to spend on political advertisements supporting Governor DeSantis constitute independent expenditures, not “gifts” subject to govemmental regulation. Finally, all of the Complaint’s allegations against RFR are based exclusively on RFR’s constitutionally protected political expression. Budowich is attempting to intimidate RFR and its supporters from exercising their fundamental First Amendment right to engage in political expression encouraging Governor DeSantis to run for President. 2 The Complaint specifies Budowich prepared it with the assistance of counsel. See Compl p. 15. This Commission should refer the Complaint to the State Bar of Florida for potential disciplinary proceedings a gainst the unnamed attomey for violating Fla. R. Prof'l Cond. 4-1.1, requiring attomey competence; Rule 4-3.3(a\1), prohibiting false statements of aw to a tribunal; Rule 4-3.3(a)G), requiring disclosure of adverse binding legal authorities; Rule 4- 4.1(), prohibiting false statements of law; Rule 4-4.4(a), wrongfully attemptingto embarrass orburden a third party; and Rule 4-8.4(0), prohibiting “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mistepresentation.” Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-8 4(a) prevents the unnamedattomey from escaping discipline simply because that attomey prudently refused to sign the frivolous complaint he or she helped draft. That rule probibits an attomey from violating the rules “through the acts of another.” Fla. R. Prof'ICond. 4.8-4(a).READY FOR “=RGIN] I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD SUMMARILY REJECT THE COMPLAINT IF IT WAS NOT DULY SWORN As an initial matter, based on the copy of the Complaint that has been publicly released, it appears the document may not have been submitted under oath as required by Fla, Admin. Code § 34-5.001(2) (requiring Commission staff to ensure each complaint “has been properly signed by the complainant under oath”). If Budowich failed to verify the complaint in this manner, this Commission is required to reject it. Jd. (“If the complaint lacks any of the foregoing, [or] is otherwise incomplete . .. the complaint shall be retumed to the complainant ....”). I. THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT PREEMPTS ALL OF THE COMPLAINT’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST RER Turning to the merits—or complete lack thereof—the Complaint contends Govemor DeSantis solicited and accepted “millions of dollars’ worth of illegal gifts” from political committees such as Ready for Ron. Complaint at 1 (hereafter, “Compl.”). The only “gifts” the Complaint alleges RFR made were its disbursements for political speech to encourage “Govemor DeSantis’s decision to run for President.” Id. at 13; see also id. at 4 (discussing Ready for Ron’s disbursements). ‘The FECA “supersede{s] and preempt{s] any provision of Statelaw with respect to election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30143(a); accord 11 C.F.R. § 108.7(a). Congress adopted this provision “to make certain that the [FECA] is construed to occupy the field with respect to elections to Federal office and that the [FECA] will be the sole authority under which such elections will be regulated." H.R. Rpt. No, 1239, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1974). The current version of this preemption provision replaced a much narrower one which “expressly preserv[ed] state laws, except where compliance with state law would result in a violation of FECA or would prohibit conduct permitted by FECA.” Teper v. Miller, 82 F.3d 989, 994 (11th Cir, 1996). Courts have consistently held the FECA preempts state laws purporting to regulate federal registered committees’ expenditures regarding federal elections. See, e.g., Bunning v. Kentucky, 42 F.3d 1008, 1012-13 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding FECA preempted state law from applying to a federal committee’s expenditure on a poll designed to test a federal candidate’s potential viability as a state candidate); Kermani v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 487 F. Supp. 2d 101, 104.4 (N.D.NY. 2006); see also Weber v. Heaney, 995 F.2d 872, 877 n.7 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding FECA preempts state restrictions on federal candidates’ expenditures). All of the Complaint’s allegations against RFR contend its expenditures to encourage Governor DeSantis to run for President violated state law. To the extent Florida law actuallyREADY FOR purported to regulate a federally registered political committee’s ability to engage in political speech conceming a federal election, it would be preempted by FECA. Accordingly, the Commission should summarily reject any claims against RFR, as well as any charges against Governor DeSantis arising from, or related to, RFR’s federally regulated disbursements.? I. RFR DID NOT VIOLATE FLORIDA’S GIFT AND LOBBYING LAWS, EVEN IF THEY APPLIED TO ITS CONDUCT Though the Complaint is verbose, redundant, and unclear, it appears to level three main baseless state-law charges against RFR. First, it contends RFR violated state law by failing to register as a lobbyist. Second, it alleges RFR has provided illegal gifts and other expenditures to Govemor DeSantis by making independent expenditures for advertisements encouraging him to run for President. Finally, it argues RFR made those independent expenditures as part of a quid 3 The Complaint’s claim Govemor DeSantis has violated the FECA is likewise meritless. It spews, “Governor DeSantis is already a de facto candidate for President of the United States under federalelection laws. Govemor DeSantis’s failure to deciare his candidacy .. . is a coordinated effort specifically designed for him to accept, as ‘unethical gifts, illegal campaign contributions . ...” Compl. at 1; accord id. at 10 ('Goveror DeSants's shadow presidential campaign, [and] legal gifting scheme. .. are in clear violation of federal campaign financelaws.); id at 13. Budovich argues Govemor DeSantis became a “candidate” underthe FECA becausehe has received more than $5,000 in contributions or made more than $5,000 in expenditures in connection with a presidential campaign. 1d. at 10 Giting 52 US.C. § 30101@); 11 CER. § 100. ‘As aninitial matter, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to investigate FECA violations. Fl Stat, §112.322(1) grants this Commission jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Florida code of ethies and otheralleged “breach{es} of the public trust” in violation of Fla. Const. art. II, § 8. Federal law, in contrast, gives the FEC jurisdiction to investigate and seek civil remedies against alleged violations of the FECA, 52 US.C. § 3010%(8)2), while the Department of Justice has jurisdiction over alleged criminal violations, id. § 30109(@)(5XC). In any event, Budovich’s only suppor for his claim the FECA required Govemor DeSentis to register asa candidate is Governor DeSants's book tour, in which he reportedly gauged support for a potential presidential run from donors, party officials, and others in several key states. dat 11. He also quotes double-hearsay from a newspaper article suggesting Governor DeSantis has already made up his mind. /d. The Federal Election Commission's regulations, however, expressly authorize a person to receive contributions and make expenditures “solely for the purpose of determining whether [to] become a candidate” without thereby triggering candidacy status. 11 CFR. § 100.72(a). “Examples of activities permissible under this exemption if they are conducted to determine whether an individual should become a candidate include, but are not limited to, conducting a pol, telephone calls, and travel” 1d. All of Govemor DeSantis’ travel and mectings described—without actual evidentiary support—in the Complaint appearto fall comfortably within the scope of this “testing the waters” regulation, The FEC has also approved potential candidates’ book tours as “bona fide commercial activity.” Rep. Paul Ryan, A.O.2014-06, at 9 (July 24, 2014), Budovich also points out “ostensibly independent federal PACs” have made substantialindependent expenditures in support of GovemorDeSantis's candidacy. Compl, 11-12, Obviously, such independent expenditures do not constitute contributions to Govemor DeSantis. See generally Buckley, 424 US. | (distinguishing between contributions and expenditures). Nor do they constitute expenditures by him, ashe is notalleged to have any influence or control over their content. Accordingly, Budovich’s federal claims areas ephemeral as his state-law claims.READY FOR “RAINE” pro quo to illegally induce Govemor DeSantis to resign as Governor so he can run for President. All of these charges are wholly devoid of merit, both legally and factually. A. —_ RER is Not Required to Register as a Lobbyist Under Florida Law Most basically, RFR was not required to register as a lobbyist under Florida law. The Complaint alleges RFR is prohibited from making “lobbying expenditures” because it is not registered as a lobbyist in Florida. Compl. at 13 (citing Fla. Stat. § 112.3215(6a); see also id. § 112.31485(1(a)). Florida law provides, “A person may not lobby an agency,” including the Govemor, see Fla. Stat. § 112.3215(1)(a), “until such person has registered as a lobbyist ....” Id. § 112.3215(3). Moreover, “no lobbyist . .. shall make, directly or indirectly, any expenditure.” Id. § 112321506). RFR has not violated either of these prohibitions. The term “lobbyist” is defined as “a person who is employed and receives payment, or who contracts for economic consideration, for the purpose of lobbying . . ..” Fla. Stat. § 112.3215(1\(h). The term “lobbly],” in tum, means “seeking, on behalf of another person, to influence (an official] with respect to a decision .. . in the area of policy . .. or an attempt to obtain the goodwill of an agency official or employee.” Fla, Stat. § 112.3215(1)(f). As these definitions demonstrate, RFR is neither a “lobbyist” nor engaged in “lobblying]” activities. As an initial matter, RFR is not lobbying Govemor DeSantis. It is not operating “on behalf of another person,” id. § 112.3215(1)(h), but rather pursuing the committce’s own goal of promoting Govemnor DeSantis’s presidential candidacy. Likewise, while supporters have provided contributions to RFR to fund its political activities, RFR has neither received payment nor economic consideration from anyone in exchange for lobbying. Jd. Finally, none of RFR’s disbursements amount to “lobby[ing].” All of RFR’s activities have been aimed at persuading Governor DeSantis to run for President. RFR is pursuing these goals on its own behalf, rather than on behalf of another person. Jd. § 112.3215(1)(). The Govemnor’s decision as to whether to run for President does not concem an “area of policy.” Thus, RFR is not required to register as a lobbyist, id. § 112.3215(3), and it did not make any prohibited expenditures, id. § 112.3215(3).READY FOR ‘a | f ‘“ wy B. _ RER Did Not Provide Any Gifts to Governor DeSantis ‘The gravamen of the Complaint’s allegations against RFR is that it has provided “millions of dollars’ worth of illegal gifts” to Governor DeSantis in violation of Fla, Stat. § 112.313(2) (emphasis added). Compl. at 1.4 It further contends these gifts should have been publicly reported pursuant to Fla, Const. art. I, § 8, and Fla, Stat. § 112.3144. ‘The Complaint elaborates, “Federal political committees, including Ready forRon .... are actively raising money and making expenditures advocating Ron DeSantis’s election as President; Ready for Ron made $281,405.21 in disbursements.” Compl. at 4. It later adds, “[AJny expenditures made by political committees in an effort to influence Governor DeSantis’s decision torn for president constitute illegal gifts by political committees and illegal lobbying payments.” Jd, at 13. The Complaint further notes. “Governor DeSantis has not made substantial efforts to denounce these political committees’ unauthorized use of his name, image and likeness in their fundraising campaigns; presumably, because these activities and expenditures finance his shadow ‘campaign for president.” Compl. at 7. ‘The provision the Complaint invokes, Fla. Stat. § 112.313(2), provides, “No public officer ... shall solicit or accept anything of value to the recipient, including a gift... based upon any understanding that the . . . official actionf] or judgment of the public officer . .. would be influenced thereby.” State law specifies the term “gift” does not include “expenditures reported pursuant to federal election law.” All of RFR’s disbursements have been timely disclosed on its periodic reports to the Federal Election Commission. See hit ys://www.fec. gov/data/committee! C00815928/eyele~2022#total-spent. Budowich clearly saw them, having cited tothem. Moreover, RFR did not provide any of the funds it spent to Governor DeSantis, To the contrary, all of its disbursements were for independent expenditures to engage in political expression conceming a potential federal candidacy. Govemor DeSantis did not have any influence or control over any of RFR’s expenditure decisions. As the Supreme Court has held for over a half century, a candidate (or, in this case, a potential candidate) is not deemed to be the recipient of a person’s independent expenditures; they are the opposite of contributions to a candidate, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 47 (1976) (per curiam). “The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an [independent] expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for impropet commitments from the candidate.” Id. at 47. Consequently, RFR’s independent expenditures were neither gifts to Govemor DeSantis nor provided anything of value to him. The ‘Complaint’s allegations under § 112.313(2) fail 4 See also Compl at (claiming “political committes" such as RFR have “funded” Governor DeSantis’ “ascension tothenationalsiage”); id. at3 (allesing, Governor DeSantis has “solicited and accepted millions of dollar in. sits" from political committees); of id. at 13 (alleging RER's spending constitutes ilegel “expenditures” by a lobbyist).READY FOR C. _ RER Does Not Wish to Persuade Governor DeSantis to Resign from Office ‘The Complaint alleges political committees such as RFR have provided gifts to Govemor DeSantis to influence him “to resign from office.” Compl. at 1; see also id, at 1-2 (reiterating alleged gifts from committees such as RFR “are necessarily intended to influence [Governor DeSantis’} official decision to resign from office”). It points out Florida has a putative resign-to- nun statute. /d. at 7 (citing Fla. Stat. § 99.012(4)(a)). The Complaint explains, “{Ojnly a sitting governor can decide to resign his office and, because of the serious consequences associated with that decision, it necessarily involves the exercise of his official judgment” and “is a decision he ccan only make in his official capacity.” Jd, at 8, Thus, by “enticing Govemor DeSantis to run for President,” a political committee is necessarily trying to induce him to “exercise his official judgment to submit an irrevocable resignation pursuant to Florida’s resign to run law.” Id. at 8.5 Pure applesauce. As an initial matter, it is far from clear Florida’s resign-to-run statute applies to state officials running for federal office. The statute requires an “officer who qualifies for federal public office” toresign from their state position. Fla, Stat. § 99.012(4)(a). This provision does not, however, define what it means to “qualifly] for federal public office.” On the one hand, itmight mean becoming a candidate forthat office. Conversely, it might mean winning the election and becoming entitled to serve in that office. Section 99.012 as a whole supports the latter interpretation, because other provisions expressly discuss “qualifyfing] as @ candidate for another... office.” Fla. Stat. § 99.0122), (3)(a) (emphasis added). RFR would support this latter interpretation, which would enable Governor DeSantis to continue serving the people of Florida as Governor while running for President. Even if Florida’s resign-to-run law as presently drafted would require Govemor DeSantis, to resign in order to nun for President, RFR’s message has never been about inducing Governor DeSantis to resign as Governor. It has consistently sought to encourage him to run for President. State law cannot probibit it from conveying that message simply because of the potential collateral consequences which may occur if Governor DeSantis decides to do so. 5 See also Compl.at? (reasoning anyone who urges Governor DeSantis to run for President is thereby also implicitly ‘urging him to resign as Govemor, due to Florida’s resign-to-run statute”); id. at 3 (discussing political committees" efforts to persuade Governor DeSantis “to resign from office and run for president”); id. at 6 (*[A] Florida Governor's decision to run for President ... necessarily requires the exercise of his official duties” by resigning).READY FOR “SRGIN| D. _ RFR Has Not Engaged in Any Quid Pro Quo Arrangement with Governor DeSantis Finally, the Complaint alleges Governor DeSantis accepted gifts and special privileges from RFR provided “with the understanding that he will run for President and resign as Governor of Florida.” Compl. at 6; accord id. at 7, 8. 14; see also id. at 8 (alleging “Governor DeSantis has solicited and received gifts as a quid pro quo for his resignation”). Literally every word in this sentence is false. Section II.B already explained RFR has not given Governor DeSantis any gifts or anything else of value. Section II.C demonstrated RFR does not want Governor DeSantis to resign. This Section follows up by showing RFR has not engaged in any illicit quid pro quo with Governor DeSantis. As discussed earlier, all of RFR’s disbursements have been for independent expenditures aimed at convincing Governor DeSantis to run for President. The Supreme Court has held such independent expenditures do not give rise to a tisk of guid pro quo comuption with a ‘candidate or potential candidate because they donot involve any “prearrangement or coordination” between the speaker and candidate or potential candidate. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47; see also Citizens United v. FEC, 558 US. 310, 360 (2010) (“{I]ndependent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate.”), McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 210-11 (2014) (plurality op.) ([Thhere is not the same risk of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance when money flows through independent actors to a candidate, as when a donor contributes to a candidate directly.”). RER’s independent decision to raise and spend funds to encourage Govemor DeSantis to run for President without any input or influence from him therefore cannot constitute an illegal quid pro quo arrangement under Fla. Stat. § 112.313(2).. IV. ALL OF THE COMPLAINT’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST RFR ARISE FROM RER’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED POLITICAL EXPRESSION Finally, all of the Complaint’s allegations against RFR are based exclusively on RFR’s constitutionally protected political expression and association. As noted earlier, the Complaint’s only specific claim about RFR is that the committee is “actively raising money” and “made $281,405.21 in disbursements” to “advocat{e] Ron DeSantis’s election as President.” Compl. at 4, ‘The Supreme Court has recognized political committees such as RFR have a fundamental constitutional right to engage in unlimited independent expenditures. See FEC v. Natl Conservative Political Action Comm. (“NCPAC"), 470 U.S. 480, 496 (1985) (“PACs’ expenditures are entitled to full First Amendment protection . . . .”), Political committees” independent expenditures “produce speech at the core of the First Amendment.” Id. at 493. The Supreme Court has invalidated attempts to limit independent expenditures by individuals, see Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47-48; comporations, Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 362; and political committees, NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 496. Any attempt to interpret or apply state law to limit RFR’sREADY FOR “RAIN fundamental right to make independent expenditures conceming a federal election would violate the First Amendment. V. THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION TO GRANT MANY OF THE REMEDIES BUDOWICH SEEKS ‘The absurdity of the Complaint’s claims is complemented by the ridiculous remedies it seeks. The Complaint asks this Commission to impose, among other things, “impeachment,” “removal from office,” and “ballot disqualification” as penalties on Governor DeSantis. Compl. at 2 (citing Fla, Stat. §§ 112.317, 112.31485(3)); accord id. at 9. Only the state legislature has authority to impeach the Governor, see Fla. Const., art. III, § 17(a), while only the Senate may remove him, id. § 17(c). Moreover, a state may not disqualify a federal candidate from appearing on the ballot based on failure to satisfy qualifications beyond those set forth in the Constitution. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 814-15, 831-32, 835 (1995). Accordingly, the Commission lacks authority to impose these penalties against Governor DeSantis. CONCLUSION To put it charitably, this Complaint is a disgraceful mess. The Complaint’s allegations against RFR are completely groundless; they simply underscore his Complaint’s complete lack of merit against Governor DeSantis. In the event Budowich simultaneously filed a separate complaint against RFR, RFR respectfully requests it be summarily dismissed. Respectfully submitted, xd yy aan ‘Counsel, Ready foy 66 W Flagler Street STE 9007 ‘Miami, FL 33130 Lilian@ReadyforRon.com