COMMENTARY
MARK SCHUMANN
Though Charlie Wilson’s Facebook rantings hardly make for the top news story of the day, perhaps readers should be aware of his antics. After all, Wilson is a candidate for the Vero Beach City Council and he does aspire to “serve” as Mayor of Vero Beach.
This weekend, Wilson criticized InsideVero for not reporting what he claimed was a certain campaign violation. That Wilson could make such a claim without first checking the facts could explain why he is no longer in the news business.
Wilson asserted two campaign signs, one urging voters not to support him, and another urging voters to “Turn off Turner,” (Pilar Turner), are in violation of Florida’s election laws because they did not include a disclaimer indicating which individual or registered campaign organization paid for the signs.
The signs were, in fact, paid for by Vero Beach resident, Linda Hillman.
According to Garry Holland, Assistant Director of the Division of Elections, Hillman is within her rights and her signs are within the law.
Holland wrote:
The reason that it is not an “independent expenditure” is that it does not expressly advocate, not that it’s not over $5000. If it did meet the definition of an independent expenditure, regardless of the cost, it must have the disclaimer in s. 106.071(2). It is also not an “electioneering communication” because it is not publicly distributed by a “television station, radio station, cable television system, satellite system, newspaper, magazine, direct mail, or telephone.” If the signs were in one of the required media, I think it would be an electioneering communication.
You fail to mention s. 106.143(1)(c), FS – “Any other political advertisement ….” The problem is that it is not a “political advertisement” since it does not expressly advocate. See the definition of “political advertisement” in s. 106.011(15). So, this reason
The “express advocacy” standard requires per US Supreme Court law that the communication contain express words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate or issue such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot for,” “Smith for Congress,” “vote against,” “defeat,” “oppose,” and “reject.”
Based upon what I see, no disclaimer is necessary for the signs.
Indian River Guardian 
Interesting. Since this is discussing whether something would need a disclaimer or is otherwise legal, I submit this: it was surprising to some in the audience at today’s IR County Commissioners Meeting that some, if not all, members of that Board stated they would vote “no” on Amendment #2 – Medical Marijuana. The actual discussion concerned county limitations on where, etc. the product could be found IF the Amendment was passed. Given some of the information they passed on to us, I may have to agree. It seems that the legislature and governor have already approved certain marijuana product and will have 5 distribution centers in the state. Given the physical size of Florida, 5 centers don’t seem like enough. It could mean some very ill people may have to make long trips to get this product. I suspect the more populated areas will be closest to the distribution centers. But to have our commissioners saying they will vote against the Amendment, via televised meeting? It does sound like the oddly-written Amendment could have been clearer. As far as Mr. Wilson goes, nothing he does surprises me.
Great signs, can we get them?
I can not sell them to you, but I do have some available. I would be willing to “lend” them to you. They are priceless.
SORRY CHARLIE!!!!
Oh Charlie-he said he had 500 signs. I checked with the lady who bought her signs. Each sign cost $20.00. 500 at $20 would cost him $10,000. Since he had $4000 in his contributions. Any thought of Charlie wanting to sell to FPL. I think we would be better off if Charlie would spend his time looking for his shoe.