Congressman Steve Southerland’s response to mounting questions about his visit to the King Ranch – where sugar lobbyists hosted at least one secret meeting with leading Florida Republicans – is only raising more questions.
Yesterday, Southerland’s spokesman told the Tampa Bay Times that he “primarily” visited the Ranch to discuss immigration and border security issues – but that only raises new concerns:
- Who was Congressman Southerland meeting with in Texas to discuss immigration?
- What else was discussed at the meeting?
- When did this meeting occur?
- Why was it held at King Ranch?
- Who paid for the trip?
- Why was Congressman Southerland discussing the border issues at King Ranch – five hours away from the border?
- Did Congressman Southerland miss any votes to attend this trip?
Congressman Southerland has accepted more than $25,000 from sugar interests, including $2,000 from U.S. Sugar. Congressman Southerland’s admission that he visited King Ranch first came to light during his press conference touting a bill supported by the Sugar Industry that would target Florida’s wetlands.
“Congressman Southerland’s strategically worded response is only raising more questions about this growing scandal,” said David Bergstein of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “If Congressman Southerland just happened to be stopping by the same ranch in Texas where his sugar lobbyist backers held a secret meeting with other lawmakers, then he should have no problem answering simple questions about his trip.”
BACKGROUND:
Southerland’s Legislation to Block Oversight of Florida Wetlands Is Supported by Sugar Industry.
“Southerland’s bill enjoys wide support from business groups like the Florida Chamber and the Florida sugar industry, which has faced increasing regulation over agricultural pollution, especially in the Everglades.”
[Miami Herald, 8/18/14]
Southerland Accepted $2,000 from U.S. Sugar, More Than $25,000 from Sugar Interests.
During the 2014 election cycle, Southerland accepted $2,000 from U.S. Sugar. Southerland also accepted at least $25,000 from PACs related to the sugar industry.
[Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 8/19/14; FEC, accessed 8/19/14]