Two former Democratic lawmakers have sued the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee over alleged false campaign communications, while a third weighs legal action amid growing concerns about voter impact and election integrity.

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Two former Democratic state representatives have filed defamation lawsuits a year apart naming the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee as a defendant, while a third former lawmaker told Florida National News she is considering legal action following Tuesday’s primary.

Former state Reps. James Bush III and Daisy Morales filed separate lawsuits in Miami-Dade and Orange counties alleging false or defamatory political communications were disseminated during their campaigns.

Former state Sen. Daphne Campbell, who won Tuesday’s Democratic primary for Florida House District 108, told FNN in a phone interview that she is considering a defamation lawsuit involving the committee. Campbell and Bush, who won the Democratic nomination for House District 109, also told FNN they are considering complaints with the Florida Elections Commission.

The allegations have not been adjudicated. Filing a lawsuit or election complaint does not establish wrongdoing, and the defendants are entitled to contest the claims.

Two Lawsuits, One Common Defendant

The Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee is a defendant in separate defamation cases filed approximately one year apart by Bush and Morales.

Miami-Dade: James Bush III Lawsuit

Case: James Bush III v. Ashley Gantt, et al.
Court: 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County
Filed: Aug. 12, 2025
Plaintiff: James Bush III
Defendants: State Rep. Ashley Gantt; Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee; Stronger Together, a political committee; and Edge Communications
Damages sought: More than $1 million and a jury trial

Bush’s seven-page complaint alleges defamatory information was disseminated through campaign mailers, telephone calls and electronic communications during his 2022 re-election campaign.

The communications included portrayals of Bush as aligned with Republicans and Gov. Ron DeSantis and criticism of his legislative record.

Bush alleges the communications contained false factual assertions that damaged his reputation. Gantt and her attorney have called the lawsuit baseless. The allegations have not been proven in court.

In a phone interview with FNN, Bush said the controversy should be examined for its potential impact on voters and the integrity of the election process.

The Honorable Daisy Morales, Democrat, Florida House District 48 (2020-2022)

Orlando: Daisy Morales Lawsuit

Case: Daisy Morales v. Samuel Vilchez Santiago and Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee
Case No.: 482026CA008697A001OX
Court: Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County
Filed: Aug. 14, 2026
Assigned judge: Circuit Judge Michael Deen
Plaintiff: Daisy Morales
Defendants: Samuel Vilchez Santiago and Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee
Claims: Defamation/libel and defamation by implication
Damages: More than $50,000 for jurisdictional purposes, with damages to be determined by a jury

Morales’ 23-page complaint centers on political communications distributed during the closing days of the House District 43 Democratic primary.

The lawsuit alleges a campaign mailer falsely represented as fact that Morales had “endorsed Republican candidates and was expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party (DEC).”

Morales disputes those characterizations and alleges the communications damaged her reputation, political standing and candidacy while Democratic voters were deciding the primary.

“This goes beyond whether one candidate wins or loses,” Morales told FNN. “When voters are deliberately given false statements of fact immediately before an election, it can affect their decisions before a court or election agency ever has an opportunity to determine what actually happened.”

The defendants have not been found liable, and the allegations remain pending.

The Honorable Daphne Cambpell, Democrat, Former State Representative, Former State Senator and State Representative-Elect, Florida House District 108

Campbell Considering Third Defamation Case

Campbell told FNN she is reviewing a possible defamation lawsuit involving the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee following her HD 108 campaign.

Campbell, who previously served in both the Florida House and Senate, defeated two opponents Tuesday to win the Democratic nomination.

She described what she views as a broader problem involving Democratic establishment influence, political committees and the treatment of candidates who challenge party-backed or establishment-preferred candidates.

Campbell also told FNN that a congressional candidate is considering a possible defamation action involving the committee.

FNN has not independently confirmed that prospective lawsuit and is withholding the candidate’s identity pending an on-the-record statement or court filing. FNN will report separately if litigation is filed.

Lawmakers Point to Similar Campaign Tactics

Bush, Campbell and Morales say their experiences raise broader questions about political mailers, text messages, telephone outreach and other communications used to influence Democratic primary voters.

Bush alleges false information was disseminated through mailers, calls and electronic communications. Morales alleges false or materially misleading factual statements were distributed through political advertising. Campbell says she is reviewing communications from her campaign to determine whether legal action is warranted.

The similarities do not establish coordination or a broader scheme.

Evidence of common decision-makers, financing, consultants, vendors, opposition research, messaging or approval processes would be necessary to substantiate broader allegations. Such evidence could potentially emerge through civil discovery or an investigation by an agency with jurisdiction.

The Legal Divide: Defamation, Election Violations and Election Contests

The disputes involve three separate areas of law: civil defamation, election-law enforcement and election contests.

Candidates and public officials face a high constitutional threshold in defamation cases involving public issues. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard, a public official generally must establish “actual malice” — that a defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false.

That means negative, misleading or damaging political speech does not automatically constitute defamation. Courts must distinguish actionable false statements of fact from protected opinion, rhetoric and political criticism.

The Florida Elections Commission serves a different function. It investigates alleged violations within its statutory election-law and campaign-finance jurisdiction. It is not a general defamation court.

An election complaint therefore must identify conduct violating a specific election statute; an allegation that political advertising was false or defamatory does not, standing alone, establish an election-law violation.

Florida Election-Contest Law Does Not Expressly List Defamation

A third legal issue could have broader implications.

Under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, an unsuccessful candidate may contest an election or nomination on specified grounds, including certain misconduct, fraud or corruption by election officials or canvassing-board members sufficient to change or place the result in doubt; the successful candidate’s ineligibility; sufficient illegal votes or rejected legal votes; and specified bribery.

The statute does not expressly identify defamatory campaign communications by a candidate, political committee or party organization as an independent ground for contesting an election.

Morales says that is a gap Florida lawmakers should examine.

Impact on Voters: Election Day Moves Faster Than the Courts

The lawmakers say the central problem is timing.

Political mailers, texts, digital advertisements and telephone communications can reach thousands of voters within days. Defamation litigation can take months or years.

An election can therefore be certified long before a judge or jury determines whether a disputed campaign statement was defamatory.

“The voter is also harmed when an election decision is based on deliberately false information,” Morales said. “You cannot give voters their vote back six months or two years later after a court finally determines what was true.”

That creates a difficult balance. The First Amendment provides extensive protection for political speech, including harsh criticism of candidates. At the same time, candidates can be held accountable under existing law for actionable defamatory statements when the required elements and constitutional standards are proven.

Former State Representative Daisy Morales

Morales Calls for Election-Contest Law Amendment

Morales said Florida should examine whether its election-contest statute should provide a narrowly tailored remedy when defamatory campaign conduct is proven and there is sufficient evidence that it materially affected an election.

She said lawmakers should study approaches taken by states including California and Oregon, while developing a Florida-specific proposal consistent with First Amendment protections.

“Florida’s election-contest law needs to be amended for the realities of modern elections,” Morales said. “If a court determines that a candidate, political committee or another political actor knowingly used defamatory false statements to influence voters, and there is sufficient evidence that the conduct materially affected the election, Florida law should provide an appropriate election remedy.”

Morales said any legislation should impose a high evidentiary threshold and distinguish legitimate criticism and political opinion from provably false statements of material fact.

Such legislation would raise significant constitutional questions and would require careful drafting to protect political speech and prevent ordinary campaign disputes from becoming grounds for overturning election results.

Why Courts and Election Regulators Matter

The existence of two lawsuits against the same political organization does not prove a coordinated operation.

But civil litigation can potentially uncover evidence through discovery, including contracts, invoices, communications, advertising drafts, opposition research, vendor relationships, approval records and information concerning what individuals knew before disputed material was disseminated.

Depending on what such evidence establishes, it could be relevant to the civil lawsuits or to separately alleged election-law violations within the Florida Elections Commission’s jurisdiction.

For now, there is one documented connection: Bush and Morales, two former Democratic Florida House members in different counties and election cycles, have separately named the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee as a defendant in defamation litigation arising from campaign communications.

Campbell says she may become the third former Democratic lawmaker to pursue such a claim.

Whether the cases represent unrelated episodes of hard-fought primary politics or evidence of something broader cannot be determined from the lawsuits alone.

For Florida voters, however, the cases raise a larger question:

What remedy should exist if intentionally false factual campaign communications are eventually proven defamatory — and also proven to have materially affected an election — after the ballots have already been counted?

Bush and Morales have taken their allegations to court. Campbell says she is considering doing the same.

Morales now says the question should also go before the Florida Legislature.