Florida

Samuel Vilchez Santiago vs. Daisy Morales: Defamation Lawsuit, Election Complaints Test HD 43 Electability

Published

2 months ago

August 18, 2026

$233,000-plus political operation, $60,000-plus PAC transfers, candidate-approved attack mailer and last-minute legal challenges turn Florida House District 43 Democratic primary into a test of money, experience and judgment

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Samuel Vilchez Santiago entered Election Day in the Florida House District 43 Democratic primary with many of the traditional ingredients of a winning campaign: substantial fundraising, a supporting political committee, organized labor, major endorsements, national political experience and an extensive Democratic network.

Former state Rep. Daisy Morales entered with something different: eight years of elected public service, previous Florida House experience, a legislative record voters can examine — and a previous Democratic primary victory over Vilchez Santiago.

The contrast is straightforward:

Political infrastructure or governing experience?

But the closing days transformed the race into something more complicated.

Morales filed a defamation lawsuit against Vilchez Santiago and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee and separately sought an expedited Florida Elections Commission investigation into disputed campaign statements. She has also sought additional state review of related election allegations.

Meanwhile, Morales says District 43 voters were hit with a mountain of negative mailers and text messages targeting her candidacy.

None of those developments establishes that Vilchez Santiago, the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee or another political organization violated the law. Lawsuits and complaints contain allegations that remain subject to investigation or adjudication.

But they create an Election Day question extending beyond legal liability:

Did a heavily financed political operation that appeared positioned to win create unnecessary vulnerabilities through an aggressive effort to define Morales negatively?

Or, more simply:

Did political advantage become political overkill?

2019 FLORIDA STATE FAIR — TAMPA: Then-Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis with Orange County Soil & Water Conservation District Board Chair and Supervisor Daisy Morales at the Florida State Fair in Tampa. Source: Daisy Morales Facebook page, Feb. 7, 2019. Unedited original photo.

DESANTIS PHOTO: WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 2019 FLORIDA STATE FAIR?

One of the most striking images in a Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee attack mailer shows Morales with newly elected Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

What the photograph does not show is its broader context.

The photograph dates to Feb. 7, 2019, at the Florida State Fair in Tampa, shortly after Florida’s newly elected statewide officials took office.

2019 FLORIDA STATE FAIR — TAMPA Democrat Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried with Brett Upthagrove, Polk Soil and Water Conservation District Board, Seat 5; Daisy Morales, Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District supervisor; and other district officials at the 2019 Florida State Fair in Tampa. Source: Daisy Morales Facebook page, Feb. 7, 2019. Unedited original photo.

Florida’s statewide leadership included Republican DeSantis, newly elected Democratic Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody and Republican Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis.

The State Fair brought elected officials together with farmers, ranchers, agricultural organizations and members of the public.

Morales was also an elected public official.

The Hillsborough Soil & Water Conservation District photo includes Supervisor Daisy Morales with district officials at the Florida State Fair in Tampa. The image featuring then-Gov. Ron DeSantis and Morales is one of approximately 15 photographs documenting the State Fair event. Source: Daisy Morales Facebook page, Feb. 7, 2019. Unedited original photograph.

At the time, she was serving as a reelected Orange County Soil & Water Conservation District supervisor. Morales says she was invited to attend in connection with her public service and to work with and support the Hillsborough Soil & Water Conservation District on agriculture, farmers, ranchers and soil and water conservation issues.

She would not be elected to the Florida House until November 2020, nearly two years later.

The photograph therefore documents Morales meeting DeSantis at a major state event while she was an elected conservation official and he was Florida’s newly elected governor.

Standing alone, the photograph does not establish that Morales endorsed DeSantis, supported the Republican Party, formed a political alliance with him or supported his political agenda.

So what exactly was the seven-year-old photograph intended to tell Democratic primary voters?

This campaign attack mailer was among numerous negative mailers targeting Daisy Morales during the 2026 Democratic primary for Florida House District 43, a race between two Democratic candidates. Source: Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee (FHDCC). The mailer states it was approved by candidate Samuel Vilchez Santiago.

WHAT DID THE PHOTO ACTUALLY PROVE?

Political advertising communicates through images as powerfully as it does through words.

When a photograph of Morales with a Republican governor appears alongside accusations portraying her as supporting Republicans, voters could interpret the image as evidence supporting that characterization.

But context matters.

Morales was an elected conservation official attending an agriculture-centered public event where Florida’s newly installed statewide officials were interacting with attendees.

The photograph proves an encounter. However, the attack mailer attributes the photo to Daisy Morales’ Facebook page in June 2026. That date is inaccurate. The original, unedited photograph was posted on Morales’ Facebook page on Feb. 7, 2019, during the Florida State Fair in Tampa.

Whether it proves the broader partisan characterization suggested by the political advertisement is another question entirely.

FNN FACT-CHECK RATED MAILER ‘MOSTLY FALSE’

Florida National News separately reviewed the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee mailer and rated its overall factual message “Mostly False.”

The FNN fact-check concluded that consequential assertions concerning Morales’ alleged Republican support, Democratic Party status and legislative record were disputed, unsupported or missing material context.

Regarding the DeSantis photograph, the distinction is straightforward:

“Governor Ron DeSantis Meets Florida’s Youngest Elected Official” Florida National News — March 2021 Orange County Soil & Water Conservation District Supervisor and Board Vice Chair Nate Douglas (left) speaks with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at the Governor’s Mansion during the State of the State Dinner Reception on Tuesday, March 2, 2021. The photograph documents Douglas and DeSantis attending and interacting at the same official event. The photograph alone does not establish a political endorsement, partisan affiliation, political alliance, or support for DeSantis or Republican candidates. Such a conclusion would require additional evidence, such as a public endorsement, campaign statement, financial contribution, campaign activity, or other documented expression of political support. Photo: State Rep. Daisy Morales Date: March 2, 2021 Source: Florida National News (FNN)

A photograph showing Morales with DeSantis establishes that they were photographed together. Without additional evidence, it does not establish an endorsement or political alliance.

The FNN rating is a journalistic assessment. It is not a judicial finding and does not establish defamation or an election-law violation.

But the controversy leads directly to another question:

Who paid for the communication — and who approved it?

PAID BY HOUSE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, APPROVED BY VILCHEZ SANTIAGO

The disputed mailer identifies the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee as paying for the communication and states that it was approved by Samuel Vilchez Santiago, Democrat, for state representative.

That matters.

This was not simply an anonymous social media post or an attack produced by an unknown source.

The political judgment question becomes:

Why did a candidate-approved political communication use a seven-year-old photograph from Morales’ public service without presenting voters with the circumstances surrounding it?

Then the dispute moved beyond voters’ mailboxes.

It went to court.

DEFAMATION LAWSUIT HITS DAYS BEFORE ELECTION

Morales filed a defamation lawsuit against Vilchez Santiago and the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee in Orange County Circuit Court in the closing days of the primary.

The lawsuit challenges campaign representations concerning Morales’ alleged support for Republican candidates and her disputed removal from the Orange County Democratic Party.

Vilchez Santiago has rejected Morales’ allegations and publicly characterized the lawsuit as a desperate political move.

No court has found Vilchez Santiago or the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee liable for defamation.

But electability presents a different question:

Was the political benefit of the attacks worth the exposure created when those statements became the subject of litigation?

FEC COMPLAINT CAME BEFORE THE LAWSUIT

The lawsuit was not Morales’ first formal challenge.

Before filing it, she asked the Florida Elections Commission to investigate possible election-law violations involving allegedly false statements and disputed political communications.

Morales requested expedited review because of the proximity of the primary.

The filing does not establish that Vilchez Santiago or anyone else violated Florida election law.

But the sequence is significant:

Attack communications → FNN fact-check → FEC complaint → defamation lawsuit → requests for additional state review.

Instead of ending the primary almost exclusively on endorsements, fundraising and policy, Vilchez Santiago entered Election Day confronting questions about the accuracy and judgment behind the attacks.

ACTBLUE AND ‘COMBATING MISINFORMATION’: WHY HIS BACKGROUND MATTERS

Those questions carry additional significance because Vilchez Santiago has made political fundraising and combating misinformation part of his professional and political résumé.

According to his campaign biography, Vilchez Santiago works as a senior nonprofit manager at ActBlue, where he says he helps thousands of nonprofits and grassroots movements across the country build people-powered fundraising programs.

His biography also highlights his service as a Hispanic media surrogate for the Biden-Harris campaign and later as national co-chair of Venezuelans with Harris, describing that work as helping combat misinformation and mobilize immigrant voters nationwide.

That background does not establish that Vilchez Santiago knowingly disseminated misinformation in the House District 43 race.

Nor does his employment make ActBlue responsible for his campaign activities.

But it makes accuracy particularly relevant to the judgment question.

A candidate who highlights experience combating misinformation and helping thousands of organizations navigate political fundraising can reasonably expect voters to closely scrutinize the accuracy and context of political communications he approves.

What verification occurred before the attack mailers were approved?

Was the context of the 2019 State Fair photograph examined?

Were representations concerning Morales’ Democratic Party status independently verified?

Was a distinction made between appearing with Republican officials at public events and actually endorsing Republican candidates?

Those questions do not presume wrongdoing.

They address judgment, consistency and credibility.

And they create a notable contrast:

Vilchez Santiago’s biography highlights experience combating misinformation. Florida National News subsequently rated the broader factual message of a candidate-approved attack mailer against Morales “Mostly False.”

A MOUNTAIN OF ATTACK MAILERS AND TEXTS: $60,000-PLUS POLITICAL OVERKILL?

For District 43 voters, campaign finance was not simply about numbers on disclosure reports.

The political battle showed up in their mailboxes and on their phones.

Morales describes a wave of negative mailers and text messages attacking her candidacy as the primary approached.

At the same time, updated campaign-finance figures cited in this analysis put transfers from Central Floridians for Change, a political committee supporting Vilchez Santiago, to the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee at more than $60,000.

Earlier figures identified $50,000. The cumulative amount subsequently increased beyond $60,000, according to the updated figures cited for this analysis.

The transfers themselves do not establish wrongdoing. Nor does the amount establish that every transferred dollar financed communications attacking Morales.

But voters can examine the sequence:

Vilchez Santiago-supporting PAC → more than $60,000 transferred to the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee → committee communications supporting Vilchez Santiago and attacking Morales → Vilchez Santiago’s approval appearing on disputed campaign material.

That sequence does not, standing alone, prove improper coordination or unlawful spending.

But politically, it raises a straightforward question:

Was a mountain of attack mailers and text messages necessary to win — or did $60,000-plus in political firepower become overkill?

$233,000 TO WIN A $29,697 JOB: WHEN DOES POLITICAL FIREPOWER BECOME OVERKILL?

The broader financial picture makes that question more striking.

According to the updated campaign-finance figures cited in this analysis, Vilchez Santiago’s candidate campaign and the political committee supporting his candidacy generated more than $233,000 in political resources.

The candidate campaign and political committee are legally separate. The PAC’s funds should not be described as money personally controlled by Vilchez Santiago.

But the combined scale illustrates the resources surrounding his candidacy.

He had money.

He had major endorsements.

He had organized labor.

He had party relationships.

He had a supporting political committee.

He had national political experience.

He had an extensive voter-contact operation.

Now compare those political resources with another number:

$29,697.

That is the annual salary paid to a rank-and-file Florida legislator.

The more than $60,000 in PAC transfers cited in this analysis alone represent more than twice the annual legislative salary for the office the candidates are seeking.

That does not suggest the spending was illegal or inherently improper. Campaigns routinely cost substantially more than the salaries attached to elected offices.

Nor should salary be confused with the importance of the position. Florida legislators vote on a state budget exceeding $100 billion and make decisions affecting millions of residents.

But the numbers illustrate the extraordinary intensity of this Democratic primary:

$29,697 annual legislative salary.

More than $60,000 in PAC transfers.

More than $233,000 in broader political resources.

A mountain of negative mailers and texts.

An FNN fact-check.

An election complaint.

A defamation lawsuit.

With so many political advantages already in place, how much additional negative campaigning was necessary?

Or did the effort to defeat Morales become bigger than the office itself?

DID HIS SUPPORTERS SIGN UP FOR THE OVERKILL?

Vilchez Santiago’s extensive endorsements were intended to demonstrate credibility, momentum and political strength.

But the closing controversy creates another question:

Did the elected officials, labor organizations, Democratic groups and political leaders who endorsed Vilchez Santiago sign up simply to support his candidacy — or did they anticipate the scale and tone of the negative campaign that followed?

An endorsement alone does not establish that a supporter knew about, financed, authorized or approved any disputed communication.

That distinction is essential.

Supporting a candidate is one thing.

Financing, authorizing, approving or knowingly participating in a particular disputed communication is another.

Ordinary endorsers therefore should not be associated with alleged misconduct merely because they supported Vilchez Santiago.

But endorsements were used to validate his candidacy and leadership.

That means voters may still ask whether the campaign that emerged in the closing weeks reflects the leadership and judgment those supporters believed they were endorsing.

SOME POLITICAL PLAYERS FACE A DIFFERENT QUESTION

The situation is different for organizations directly involved in disputed political activity.

The Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee is not merely an endorser.

It is a named defendant alongside Vilchez Santiago in Morales’ defamation lawsuit and is identified as the organization that paid for the disputed mailer.

Being named as a defendant does not establish liability.

Likewise, government complaints requesting investigations do not establish violations.

The distinction matters:

Who endorsed Vilchez Santiago? Who financed communications? Who approved them? Who produced them? And who, if anyone, knew whether disputed representations were accurate?

Those are different factual questions and should not be collapsed into one.

AFFORDABILITY VS. POLITICAL OVERKILL

Then there are the people the next representative will actually serve.

House District 43 families are confronting housing costs, property insurance, groceries, transportation expenses and other affordability pressures.

Against that backdrop, Morales can ask whether a political operation surrounded by substantial resources devoted too much of its closing argument to defeating another Democrat rather than explaining how it would make life more affordable.

Political committees are permitted to spend money influencing elections.

The electability question is about priorities and judgment.

Could more of the campaign’s political capital have been devoted to affordability, education, public safety and economic opportunity?

Or did the effort to politically overwhelm Morales ultimately overwhelm Vilchez Santiago’s own positive message?

MORALES’ COUNTERWEIGHT: WHAT DID SHE DO WHEN VOTERS GAVE HER THE JOB?

If Vilchez Santiago asks voters to evaluate fundraising, endorsements, organizing and professional political experience, Morales offers a fundamentally different test:

What did she accomplish when voters actually sent her to Tallahassee?

Morales served in elected local office before winning election to the Florida House in November 2020.

Her legislative record includes work involving veterans, property-tax relief, people with disabilities, consumer protection and community investments.

That gives voters something different to evaluate:

Not simply what Morales promises to do — but what she did when she previously held the office.

DISABLED VETERANS: HB 45 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

One of Morales’ clearest legislative accomplishments involved disabled veterans.

Morales was the primary House sponsor of HB 45 in 2022, Educational Opportunities for Disabled Veterans, legislation addressing educational benefits for qualifying disabled veterans.

The measure passed the Florida House 115-0 and the Senate 38-0.

That unanimous bipartisan support gives Morales a tangible result to place against Vilchez Santiago’s endorsements and political infrastructure.

Vilchez Santiago can point to the coalition he built to get to Tallahassee. Morales can point to legislation she advanced after voters sent her there.

PROPERTY-TAX RELIEF: FROM $500 TO $5,000

Morales also sponsored HB 13, addressing property-tax relief for qualifying widows, widowers, blind residents and people who are totally and permanently disabled.

The measure increased the applicable exemption from $500 to $5,000, effective Jan. 1, 2023.

That accomplishment connects directly to an affordability debate now dominating Florida politics.

Morales can therefore argue that she is not simply campaigning on affordability in 2026.

She can point to previous legislative work involving tax relief.

DOWN SYNDROME COMMUNITY: HB 213

Morales’ legislative record also included HB 213, establishing a Down syndrome specialty license plate benefiting Florida’s Down syndrome community.

For voters evaluating representation of people with disabilities, the measure adds another concrete accomplishment to Morales’ record.

Her broader legislative work included consumer-protection legislation, commercial telephone solicitation reforms, protections involving elderly and disabled adults and appropriations benefiting community organizations.

No legislator passes legislation alone, and sponsorship or co-sponsorship should not be presented as sole responsibility for measures enacted by the Legislature.

But the record gives voters measurable results to evaluate.

MILLIONS IN COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS

Morales also sponsored or supported appropriations that secured legislative approval for projects benefiting Central Florida and communities statewide.

Among the projects associated with her legislative work were funding for UCF nursing programs in Lake Nona, Farm Share, organizations serving blind Floridians and other community initiatives.

Appropriations require approval by the Legislature and governor, so no individual lawmaker can accurately claim sole responsibility for state funding.

But advocating for local projects and navigating them through the appropriations process is part of the job voters expect their representative to perform.

That adds another dimension to the electability comparison:

Who can deliver once the campaign ends?

EXPERIENCE VS. POLITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

That may be the clearest substantive contrast in House District 43.

Vilchez Santiago’s résumé emphasizes:

ActBlue. Helping thousands of nonprofits and grassroots movements. National Democratic political work. Combating misinformation. Major endorsements. Organized labor. Fundraising. Political organization.

Morales’ résumé emphasizes:

Eight years of elected public service. Florida House experience. Legislation. Appropriations. Constituent service. A legislative voting record. A previous victory over Vilchez Santiago.

Neither résumé automatically determines who would be the better representative.

But they present fundamentally different choices.

Vilchez Santiago asks voters to convert political and organizational experience into legislative experience.

Morales asks voters to return someone who has already done the legislative job.

THE OLDER QUESTION: WHAT HAPPENED TO MORALES INSIDE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

The controversy also reaches back to Morales’ disputed 2024 removal from the Orange County Democratic Party.

Morales alleges party loyalty rules were selectively and inconsistently enforced.

The issue carries additional significance because Vilchez Santiago previously chaired the Orange County Democratic Executive Committee.

Morales points to other Democrats who publicly supported, endorsed or worked with Republican candidates and argues they did not face comparable disciplinary consequences.

That raises a legitimate question:

Were the same Democratic Party rules consistently applied to similarly situated members?

There has been no official finding that Morales’ removal was manufactured, fraudulent or deliberately engineered to benefit Vilchez Santiago in the 2026 election.

Those remain allegations and investigative questions.

PARTY REMOVAL LATER BECOMES CAMPAIGN AMMUNITION

What happened afterward makes the issue politically significant.

Vilchez Santiago was chairman of the local Democratic organization.

Morales was removed during his tenure.

Vilchez Santiago later became her opponent.

And Morales’ Democratic Party status subsequently became part of the political case used against her.

None of those facts, standing alone, establishes that the disciplinary action was manufactured for a future election.

But the sequence makes transparency important.

Who initiated the process? Who participated? What evidence was considered? What rules were applied? Were those same rules applied to other Democrats?

And ultimately:

Did a party action taken while Vilchez Santiago was chairman later provide him with a political advantage when he became Morales’ opponent?

Those questions can be investigated without presuming the answers.

VILCHEZ SANTIAGO STILL HOLDS MAJOR ELECTABILITY ADVANTAGES

None of the controversies erases Vilchez Santiago’s strengths.

Money matters.

Endorsements matter.

Organized labor matters.

Campaign infrastructure matters.

Repeated voter contact matters.

Vilchez Santiago entered Election Day with significant advantages in each category.

His campaign can also argue that Morales’ lawsuit and complaints are last-minute attempts to redirect attention from criticism of her political record and party history.

And voters repeatedly exposed to negative communications may have formed opinions before Morales’ rebuttal reached them.

The election could ultimately demonstrate exactly why fundraising, organization and endorsements remain powerful.

MORALES HAS ONE ADVANTAGE MONEY CANNOT BUY: SHE HAS BEATEN HIM BEFORE

Morales brings another piece of evidence.

She has defeated Vilchez Santiago before.

Morales won their 2020 Democratic primary before winning election to the Florida House that November.

The 2026 district boundaries, electorate, campaign resources and political environment are different.

A previous victory does not predict another.

But it provides Morales with a straightforward closing argument:

Vilchez Santiago has the money, endorsements and political infrastructure. Morales has already demonstrated that she can defeat him and serve in the Florida House.

DID A WINNING OPERATION BECOME POLITICAL OVERKILL?

That brings the race back to its central question.

Vilchez Santiago built many of the ingredients of a winning campaign.

Yet the closing days became about much more than those advantages.

A seven-year-old DeSantis photograph became political ammunition.

FNN rated the broader mailer’s factual message “Mostly False.”

Vilchez Santiago’s own résumé highlighting experience combating misinformation added another layer of scrutiny.

An FEC complaint followed.

A defamation lawsuit followed.

More than $60,000 reportedly moved from a PAC supporting his candidacy to the House Democratic committee involved in campaign communications.

And Morales says voters encountered a mountain of negative mailers and text messages.

Meanwhile, her disputed Democratic Party removal resurfaced because that party action later became part of the political argument against her.

Individually, those developments do not establish wrongdoing.

Collectively, they changed the closing conversation.

WHY IT MATTERS TO ELECTION DAY VOTERS

House District 43 ultimately presents voters with two theories of electability.

Vilchez Santiago offers political infrastructure: money, endorsements, organized labor, national political experience, fundraising expertise and an extensive coalition.

Morales offers governing experience: previous elected service, legislation, appropriations, constituent service and a record voters can examine.

None of the legal developments establishes that Vilchez Santiago committed defamation, violated election law or improperly participated in Morales’ party removal.

A lawsuit is not a verdict.

A complaint is not a finding.

An endorsement does not make a supporter responsible for campaign tactics.

And political contributions do not automatically establish control over another committee’s spending.

But voters evaluate more than legal liability.

They evaluate:

Judgment. Credibility. Experience. Priorities. Leadership. Results.

That leaves House District 43 Democrats with two final questions:

Did Samuel Vilchez Santiago’s money, endorsements and political organization build the campaign necessary to defeat Daisy Morales — or did more than $60,000 in PAC transfers and a mountain of negative communications turn a winning advantage into political overkill?

Or will Morales’ previous victory, legislative record and governing experience prove more valuable when voters cast their ballots?

House District 43 voters will decide.

Crimes and Courts

Florida Gaming Control Commission Seizes 163 Illegal Slot Machines, $247K in St. Petersburg

Published

2 weeks ago

September 15, 2026

FNN NEWS

State gaming agents and partner law enforcement agencies targeted two St. Petersburg businesses, seizing more than $247,000 in cash and issuing notices to appear to three people.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (FNN) — The Florida Gaming Control Commission seized 163 alleged illegal slot machines and $247,285 in cash during searches of two St. Petersburg businesses as part of an enforcement action dubbed “Operation Final Spin,” according to the agency.

The Sept. 10 operation was conducted with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, Florida Highway Patrol and Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, according to an FGCC news release.

The searches targeted Action Arcade, 6541 54th Ave. N., and The Zoo Sports Club and Grille, 5111 66th St. N.

FGCC is responsible for regulating authorized gambling and enforcing Florida’s criminal gambling prohibitions. Its stated enforcement priorities include investigating illegal arcades, slot-machine businesses and the distribution of illegal gambling devices.

163 Machines Seized at Two Locations

According to FGCC, agents seized 90 machines and $142,020 from Action Arcade.

Two people were issued notices to appear, with each accused of one count of possession of slot machines and one count of keeping a gambling house, the agency said.

At The Zoo Sports Club and Grille, agents seized another 73 machines and $105,265, according to FGCC. One person was issued a notice to appear on allegations of possession of slot machines and acting as an agent or employee of a gambling house.

The allegations are charges, and the individuals are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

State Rep. Berny Jacques Joins Enforcement Action

Florida Gaming Control Commission Vice Chair Tina Repp and state Rep. Berny Jacques participated in the enforcement action, according to the commission.

“These machines are designed to take advantage of people, and far too often that means senior citizens living on fixed incomes who can least afford to lose what they have,” Jacques said in the agency’s release.

Jacques thanked FGCC and participating law enforcement agencies and said the operation was intended to protect vulnerable residents.

Repp said the operation was part of a broader statewide enforcement effort.

“Operation Final Spin and the more than 200 illegal arcades we have shut down before this should make it clear that our goal is to disrupt and dismantle illegal gaming across the state of Florida,” Repp said.

The claim that more than 200 illegal arcades have previously been shut down is attributed to Repp and FGCC.

🎰Operation Final Spin: Two locations. 163 illegal slot machines. $247,285 in U.S. currency seized.
The Florida Gaming Control Commission executed search warrants in two locations in St. Petersburg as part of the operation with the participation of FGCC Vice Chair Tina Repp and… pic.twitter.com/IgNOYNv2gn
— Florida Gaming Control Commission (@FLGamingControl) September 15, 2026

Where Slot Machines Are Legal in Florida

Florida tightly restricts where slot machines can legally operate. FGCC says slot-machine gaming is authorized at eight licensed pari-mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward counties and at certain tribal gaming facilities. The agency says offering slot-machine gaming at an unlicensed establishment, including bars, restaurants and adult arcades, violates state law.

FGCC also warns that illegal gambling businesses operate outside regulatory safeguards governing licensed slot machines, including requirements related to game integrity and minimum payout percentages.

Florida’s gambling laws and regulations are primarily contained in Chapters 550, 551 and 849 of the Florida Statutes.

Reporting Suspected Illegal Gambling

People who suspect illegal gambling activity can submit information through the Florida Gaming Control Commission’s reporting system or call 850-880-3433.

Additional information about authorized gambling locations is available through the FGCC Gaming Locations directory.

Florida

Republicans for Jolly Launches as GOP Supporters Back Democrat David Jolly for Florida Governor

Published

2 weeks ago

September 15, 2026

FNN NEWS

Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Williams, left, speaks during the launch of Republicans for Jolly at Williams Park in St. Petersburg on Sept. 14, 2026, as Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly looks on. The coalition was formed to organize Republican and independent support for the Jolly-Graham ticket. Photo courtesy: David Jolly for Governor.

Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Williams joins GOP officials and voters supporting Jolly as the Democratic nominee seeks crossover support ahead of November

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (FNN)— A coalition of Florida Republicans supporting Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly launched “Republicans for Jolly” on Monday in St. Petersburg, with former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Williams among those publicly backing Jolly in the 2026 governor’s race.

According to the Jolly campaign, the coalition will work with the Jolly-Graham campaign to organize events, conduct outreach and engage Republicans and independent voters who are willing to cross party lines in the Nov. 3 general election.

The campaign launched the effort under the message “Principles Over Party,” arguing that voters should place governing principles ahead of party affiliation. The coalition has also launched an online organizing effort through the Republicans for Jolly campaign page.

Bobby Williams Backs Jolly

Williams, who sought the Republican nomination for governor earlier this year, appeared at the St. Petersburg announcement and said his support for Jolly was based on the candidate rather than party affiliation.

“My message hasn’t changed; it’s back to ‘We the People’ instead of ‘We the Lobbyists’ and ‘We the Big Corporations,’” Williams said, according to the campaign. “It’s person over party.”

Williams added: “What person is going to best represent Floridians? … We want someone who is going to fight for Floridians.”

The event was held at Williams Park, where Ronald Reagan campaigned during his successful 1980 presidential campaign.

Republican Leaders Join Coalition

The organization is co-chaired by Greg Wilson, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and George Kruse, a Republican Manatee County commissioner.

“David is a man of character, competency, and ethical values,” Wilson said in the campaign release. “His policy positions pass a common-sense test and are achievable even in a divided state government.”

Kruse said the coalition believes Republicans should consider candidates based on their governing principles rather than solely their party registration.

“In this election, we believe that tested and trusted principles, rooted in local control, affordability, and basic common sense, are on the ballot in Florida,” Kruse said.

Those assessments represent the views of Wilson, Kruse and the coalition supporting Jolly.

Jolly Courts Republicans and Independents

Jolly represented Florida in Congress as a Republican before leaving the GOP and becoming an independent. He later joined the Democratic Party and is now the party’s 2026 nominee for governor.

His previous Republican affiliation has become part of his campaign’s effort to attract voters outside the Democratic Party.

“This campaign has room for all Floridians, regardless of their political background,” Jolly said. “If you want a candidate who will work hard to improve housing, healthcare, and education, and stop data centers, I’d be honored to earn your vote.”

According to Jolly’s campaign, his “principles over party” platform emphasizes local control, private-sector leadership, personal freedom and government intervention in areas where he believes markets are failing to produce adequate results. The campaign identifies housing, property insurance, health care, education and affordability among its major policy areas.

Jolly has described his approach as accepting policy ideas from either side of the political spectrum based on whether he believes they will work, rather than their partisan origins.

Republicans Respond to Jolly’s Crossover Effort

The effort comes as Jolly faces Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds in the general election.

Republicans have disputed Jolly’s characterization of himself and his agenda. Following the coalition announcement, Donalds campaign communications director Gates McGavick criticized Jolly’s policy positions and characterized his agenda as liberal.

Jolly, meanwhile, rejected several claims being made about his positions by the Donalds campaign during questions following the St. Petersburg announcement.

The competing statements underscore the broader campaign fight over Jolly’s political identity: his campaign is highlighting his Republican background and crossover supporters, while Republican opponents are emphasizing his current affiliation and positions as the Democratic nominee.

Cross-Party Support Emerges on Both Sides

The Republicans for Jolly announcement also comes amid crossover endorsements elsewhere in the governor’s race.

Independent reporting noted that the announcement followed Gainesville City Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut, a Democrat, publicly supporting Donalds, providing an example of cross-party support moving in the opposite direction.

For Jolly, the new coalition creates an organized vehicle for Republican supporters to participate directly in his campaign through voter outreach, events and public testimonials.

“We’re just building a bigger table,” Jolly said during the St. Petersburg event, according to reporting on the announcement.

Florida

FNN ANALYSIS: After 2024 Defections, Florida Democrats Face 2026 Election Test: Can They Rebuild as Republicans Expand Their Advantage?

Published

3 weeks ago

September 12, 2026

FNN NEWS

Wide view of the Florida House of Representatives chamber in Tallahassee with lawmakers seated at their desks during a legislative session.

Members of the Florida House of Representatives conduct legislative business inside the House chamber at the Florida Capitol in Tallahassee. The chamber is at the center of Florida’s changing political landscape as Republicans hold a supermajority and Democrats seek to rebuild their legislative representation ahead of the 2026 general election. Photo: Florida House of Representatives

Republicans built a legislative supermajority through elections before two House Democrats switched parties and the Senate Democratic leader became unaffiliated. Now Democrats are trying to rebuild amid a GOP voter-registration advantage exceeding 1.54 million — and signs that some Republican-held districts remain competitive.

By Florida National News

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (FNN) — Six years ago, Florida Democrats held enough seats in the state House to prevent Republicans from reaching a two-thirds supermajority.

Today, the political landscape looks dramatically different.

Republicans emerged from the 2020 election with 78 of the Florida House’s 120 seats, two short of the 80 required for a two-thirds majority. Democrats held 42.

By the end of the 2024 election, Republicans had 85 seats and Democrats 35. Then two newly reelected Democratic representatives — Susan Valdés of Tampa and Hillary Cassel of Broward County — switched to the Republican Party, expanding the GOP advantage to 87-33.

Four months later, another high-profile departure came in the Senate. Democratic Leader Jason Pizzo left his party and became unaffiliated.

Those defections attracted significant attention, but they can obscure the larger story of Florida’s political transformation.

Party switching did not create Republican control of Tallahassee. Elections did.

The subsequent defections widened an advantage Republicans had already established at the ballot box.

Now, with the Nov. 3, 2026, general election approaching, Democrats face a more complicated test than simply winning several competitive races. They are attempting to rebuild legislative representation while confronting a Republican voter-registration advantage of more than 1.54 million active voters.

At the same time, Democratic victories in several 2026 legislative contests suggest the statewide numbers do not necessarily determine what happens district by district.

That creates three questions heading into November: Can Democrats win back legislative seats? Can Republicans protect the districts underlying their supermajority? And can both parties retain the lawmakers voters elect under their banners?

From 42 House Democrats to Republican Supermajority

The clearest starting point is 2020.

Republicans won 78 House seats, compared with 42 for Democrats. With 80 seats needed for a two-thirds majority, Democrats retained enough representation to keep Republicans below that threshold.

Former Democratic Reps. Daisy Morales of Orange County and James Bush III of Miami-Dade County were among the lawmakers elected as part of that 42-member Democratic delegation.

The balance changed decisively two years later.

Republicans expanded their House majority to 85 seats in the 2022 election, crossing the two-thirds threshold. The 2024 election again produced an 85-35 Republican advantage.

That chronology is important because it separates two different political developments.

Republicans gained the supermajority through elections. The Democratic defections came afterward.

The distinction also provides a clearer measurement of Democratic decline: from 42 House seats after the 2020 election to 35 after the 2024 election — a net reduction of seven seats before either Valdés or Cassel changed parties.

Two House Democrats Switch Parties

The first post-election departure came quickly.

On Dec. 9, 2024, Valdés announced she was leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party, just weeks after voters reelected her as a Democrat.

Her switch moved the House from 85 Republicans and 35 Democrats to 86-34.

Less than three weeks later, Cassel followed.

On Dec. 27, Cassel announced she also was leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP.

The House moved to 87 Republicans and 33 Democrats.

Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried criticized Cassel’s decision at the time while acknowledging the difficult political environment facing Democrats.

The significance went beyond losing two caucus members.

A direct switch from Democrat to Republican changes the partisan margin by two: Democrats lose one seat while Republicans simultaneously gain one.

The two defections therefore transformed an 85-35 House into an 87-33 chamber without another general election being held.

Senate Democratic Leader Becomes Unaffiliated

The next departure was politically significant but fundamentally different.

On April 24, 2025, Pizzo announced he was leaving the Democratic Party while serving as Senate Democratic leader. His voter registration became No Party Affiliation the following day.

He did not become a Republican.

That distinction matters when measuring party switching. Valdés and Cassel directly increased the Republican House caucus. Pizzo’s departure did not add a Republican senator.

It nevertheless cost Democrats a sitting senator and their caucus leader. Sen. Lori Berman subsequently became Senate Democratic leader.

An FNN review of these high-profile departures from 2020 through 2026 therefore identifies three sitting Democratic state lawmakers leaving the party:

Valdés: Democrat → Republican

Cassel: Democrat → Republican

Pizzo: Democrat → No Party Affiliation

FNN’s review did not identify a comparable sitting Republican Florida legislator who switched directly to the Democratic Party during the same period.

But the numbers reinforce the larger point: the movement of individual lawmakers accelerated a political shift that had already occurred through elections.

The Bigger Transformation Is Outside the Capitol

The change in Florida’s voter-registration balance has been even more dramatic than the movement inside the Legislature.

In 2020, Florida reported 5,315,954 active registered Democrats and 5,218,739 Republicans.

Democrats held an advantage of 97,215 voters.

As of July 31, 2026, Florida reported:

Party affiliation	Active voters
Republican	5,607,836
Democratic	4,066,503
No Party Affiliation	3,327,656
Minor parties	497,679
Total	13,499,674

Republicans now lead Democrats by 1,541,333 active registered voters, according to the Florida Division of Elections.

Measured from the Democratic advantage in 2020 to the Republican advantage in July 2026, the Republican-Democratic registration margin shifted by approximately 1.64 million voters.

That is one of the most important numbers for understanding Florida politics entering the 2026 general election.

But it also requires careful interpretation.

A decline in active Democratic registration cannot automatically be described as more than a million Democrats becoming Republicans.

Voter rolls change for multiple reasons, including deaths, people moving into or out of Florida, new registrations, inactive classifications, list maintenance and voters changing party affiliation.

The more defensible conclusion is narrower but still consequential:

Florida moved from a slight Democratic registration advantage in 2020 to a Republican advantage exceeding 1.5 million active voters by mid-2026.

That is a structural change extending far beyond a handful of lawmakers changing parties.

More Than 3.3 Million Voters Belong to Neither Major Party

There is another number that complicates any attempt to translate registration totals directly into election outcomes.

Florida had more than 3.32 million active voters registered with no party affiliation as of July 31.

That electorate is larger than the population of many states.

Those voters do not form a single ideological bloc, and their existence does not erase the GOP registration advantage. But they reinforce why statewide party registration alone cannot determine the outcome of individual legislative races.

Florida legislative elections are decided district by district.

Candidate quality, fundraising, turnout, district boundaries, local demographics, campaign organization and voter enthusiasm can produce outcomes that differ from statewide trends.

That distinction has become especially relevant in 2026.

Democrats Have Shown They Can Still Flip Republican-Held Seats

For Democrats, the strongest counterargument to the state’s broader Republican trend has come from actual election results.

Democrat Emily Gregory flipped House District 87 in a March 2026 special election, defeating Republican Jon Maples.

The result drew attention because Republican Mike Caruso had carried the district by roughly 19 percentage points in 2024.

Democrat Brian Nathan also flipped Senate District 14, defeating Republican Josie Tomkow by just over 400 votes.

Those results demonstrated that at least some Republican-held legislative districts remain competitive under the right electoral conditions.

Florida Democrats have also expanded year-round organizing and made breaking the Republican legislative supermajority a central objective of the 2026 cycle.

But special elections come with an important warning.

They typically involve smaller and sometimes substantially different electorates than November general elections.

Republicans have pointed to House District 35 as evidence of that difference. Democrat Tom Keen won the Orlando-area seat in a January 2024 special election, only for Republicans to reclaim it during the November general election.

The 2026 Democratic flips therefore provide evidence of competitiveness, not proof of a statewide reversal.

November will provide the larger test.

Republicans Have a Structural Advantage — But Still Must Defend It

The challenge facing Republicans is different.

They do not need to rebuild a legislative majority. They already possess one.

They enter the election with a House supermajority and a statewide registration advantage that would have been difficult to envision when Democrats still led voter registration in 2020.

The question is whether those structural advantages continue translating into legislative victories across Florida.

A statewide registration lead does not make every Republican-held district equally secure.

The Gregory and Nathan victories demonstrate that Democrats can still win Republican-held territory, particularly when turnout, candidate performance and district conditions align.

For Republicans, November therefore becomes a test of durability.

Can the party maintain the legislative gains it accumulated over multiple election cycles while defending districts Democrats now view as opportunities?

The Democratic Challenge Is Now Twofold: Win Seats and Keep Them

For Democrats, the experience following the 2024 election introduces another issue that cannot be measured solely on election night.

Political parties invest substantial resources recruiting candidates, raising money, organizing voters and winning legislative seats.

But caucus strength ultimately depends on keeping those lawmakers after they take office.

The Valdés and Cassel switches demonstrated how quickly that calculation can change.

Democrats won 35 House seats in November 2024. Weeks later, they had 33 members because two lawmakers elected as Democrats joined Republicans.

Pizzo’s departure presented a different version of the same organizational problem: Democrats lost their Senate leader even though he did not join the Republican Party.

That creates two separate measurements for Democratic rebuilding:

Electoral growth: Can Democrats increase the number of legislative seats they win?

Caucus stability: Can they retain the lawmakers elected as Democrats?

Winning without retention can limit rebuilding. Retention without winning additional districts leaves the party’s minority position largely unchanged.

Democrats need both if their objective is to reduce Republican legislative dominance.

Former Lawmakers Add Another Dimension to the Rebuilding Debate

The 2026 cycle also raises questions about how a minority party decides where to invest limited political resources.

Morales and Bush were members of the 42-seat Democratic House delegation elected in 2020. Both later left the Legislature and subsequently sought returns through Democratic primaries.

Their races, districts and political circumstances are different and should be evaluated separately.

But their candidacies illustrate a broader strategic issue facing any party attempting to rebuild:

How should resources be divided among defending incumbents, supporting challengers in opposition-held districts, recruiting newcomers and considering former lawmakers seeking a return to office?

There is no single formula.

A former legislator may bring name recognition, fundraising relationships and legislative experience. A newcomer may offer stronger district appeal or represent a changing electorate. An incumbent may require significant resources simply to prevent the party from losing another seat.

The effectiveness of those decisions ultimately can be measured by outcomes.

Does the party gain seats?

Does it protect vulnerable seats?

Does it expand into territory previously controlled by the opposition?

And does it retain the lawmakers it helped elect?

Those questions become particularly important when one party is operating from a substantial numerical disadvantage.

What Has Actually Changed Since 2024?

For Democrats, there are identifiable changes since the immediate aftermath of the 2024 election.

The Florida Democratic Party retained Nikki Fried as chair in 2025, expanded its year-round organizing operation and increased regional staffing ahead of the 2026 cycle.

The party has continued its Take Back Local initiative aimed at municipal and local races while placing greater emphasis on legislative contests.

And Democrats have produced tangible 2026 victories, including Republican-held legislative seats.

Those developments provide evidence of organizational activity and some electoral progress.

They have not, however, erased the larger structural imbalance.

Republicans still hold the legislative supermajority.

Republicans still lead statewide active voter registration by more than 1.54 million.

Democrats still must gain substantially more legislative ground before control of either chamber becomes competitive.

The most accurate description of the Democratic position heading toward November is therefore neither collapse nor comeback.

It is a rebuilding test whose results remain unresolved.

Why It Matters to Florida Voters

The significance extends beyond the internal fortunes of either political party.

A legislative supermajority can affect the balance of power in Tallahassee because it gives the majority party sufficient numbers to take actions that require more than a simple majority.

The size of the minority caucus also affects committee representation, legislative negotiations, the ability to sustain or challenge certain procedural actions and the overall political leverage available to the opposition.

That makes legislative competition relevant even when control of a chamber is not immediately in doubt.

For Democratic voters, 2026 provides a measurable test of whether the party can translate organizing and special-election victories into broader legislative gains.

For Republican voters, it tests whether the political coalition that produced the GOP’s current advantage remains durable in a general election.

For NPA and minor-party voters, it underscores the potential importance of voters outside either major party in competitive districts.

And for Florida voters generally, it provides a way to distinguish political narratives from measurable results.

The Numbers to Watch on Nov. 3

The 2026 general election is scheduled for Nov. 3. Florida’s voter-registration deadline is Oct. 5, with mandatory statewide early voting scheduled for Oct. 24-31.

Rather than judging Florida’s political direction from one race, three measurements will provide a clearer picture.

First: Legislative seats.
Do Democrats finish the election with more House and Senate seats than they entered with, or do Republicans maintain or expand their advantage?

Second: Republican registration advantage versus district results.
Does the GOP’s statewide registration lead translate consistently into legislative victories, or do Democrats continue outperforming the statewide environment in selected districts?

Third: Caucus stability.
After voters choose their lawmakers, do the members remain with the parties under whose banners they were elected?

Together, those measurements will provide a better indication of Florida’s direction than any isolated special election, party switch or registration statistic.

A Six-Year Transformation

The numbers tell the story clearly.

In 2020, Democrats held 42 Florida House seats, and Republicans were two seats short of a supermajority.

Democrats also held a 97,215-voter statewide registration advantage.

By 2024, Republicans had won 85 House seats, already exceeding the supermajority threshold.

Two Democratic defections subsequently increased the Republican House caucus to 87 while reducing Democrats to 33.

And by July 2026, Republicans held a statewide registration advantage of 1,541,333 active voters.

Those developments represent a profound shift in Florida politics.

But elections are snapshots, not permanent guarantees.

Democrats’ 2026 legislative flips show that Republican-held districts can still change hands. Republicans’ statewide numbers show the scale of the challenge Democrats face in turning isolated victories into sustained gains.

That is why Nov. 3 matters.

The central question is no longer simply whether Florida has moved toward Republicans. The electoral and registration numbers already establish that Republicans have gained substantial ground since 2020.

The unanswered question is whether that movement has reached a durable plateau — or whether Democrats have begun rebuilding enough support to reverse some of those losses.

The first meaningful statewide answer comes in November.

NEXT FNN ANALYSIS: Where Is the Money Going?

Election results are only one measure of rebuilding. Political investment is another.

FNN’s next examination should follow the money behind Florida House races: where Democratic political organizations are spending, which candidates receive institutional support, how much is directed toward Democratic primaries and how those expenditures compare with resources devoted to defending Democratic seats or challenging Republican-held districts.

That examination can include the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, campaign committees and related political spending while carefully distinguishing verified campaign-finance transactions from allegations or disputed claims involving individual campaigns.

The central question is measurable:

At a time when Democrats say they are trying to break the Republican supermajority, are Democratic political resources being deployed in ways that expand, protect or reduce the party’s representation in the Florida House?

That is a separate story — and one best answered through campaign-finance records rather than political rhetoric.