Cancer doesn’t discriminate, but Florida’s political gift ban does

Coins in glass money jar with donations label, financial concept. Vintage wooden background with dramatic light.

On the surface, the state’s lobbyist gift ban makes sense. People with sway over how state dollars are spent shouldn’t be allowed to accept fancy dinners or vacations from lobbyists looking to influence the process.

But the gift ban is more constrictive than that. The law is so far-reaching that it also effects many non-elected state employees, barring them from accepting gifts. The gift-giver doesn’t even have to be a lobbyist — if they work for a company that has a registered lobbyist, their generosity is limited to $100.

The way the law is written means there’s likely dozens of violations every day. But nobody is looking to enforce the rule against a rank-and-file state employee who went out for drinks with an HCA nurse or State Farm insurance agent.

But what if the gift was bigger? Like, cancer treatment big?

In that case, a state worker would face a decision: Keep their job (and state health insurance) or risk losing it by accepting help from others.

Alexis Lambert, an attorney working for the Florida Lottery, chose the former. In August 2018, Lambert thought she had come down with food poisoning, but her diagnosis was much more dire.

“I went from feeling pretty lousy to being diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer within 18 days,” she said.

And within 45 days, her out of pocket costs were already approaching $8,000 and showed no signs of slowing down.

“Every time you walk into the doctor’s office it’s at least a $35 copay, if not $50, and then if you have tests done its hundreds each time,” she said. “I had to get blood work done before every time I had chemo so they could make sure I could handle it.”

Offers of help flowed in, but as a Sunshine Law expert, she knew that she had to turn them down in order to keep her job and insurance. That meant moving in with her parents for a couple months and having them help pay her mortgage.

Then there’s the other expenses such as traveling to UF Health Shands Hospital for treatment, or having groceries delivered.

Lambert is doing better now — doctors said gave her the all clear about six weeks ago — but if any part of the experience was forgettable, there are bills there to remind her.

“There were many points in this process where I wondered ‘how does anyone afford to get this sick,’” she said. “The answer is they don’t.”

That’s doubly true for state employees, who make about $42,000 a year on average.

According to U.S. News & World Report, treatment with newly approved drugs can cost up to $10,000 per month, and patients are expected to pick up 20%-30% of the tab — that’s $24,000 to $36,000 in out of pocket costs per year.

And they’d have to handle those costs without accepting help from non-relatives — no GoFundMe page, no anything.

Lambert is now advocating for a change to the gift ban.

It wouldn’t alter the intent of the law — that lobbyists not be allowed to shower gifts on lawmakers — but would simply provide an exception to the rule: if a state employees or their child has been diagnosed with a serious condition, they should be allowed to accept monetary donations from anyone who wants to help.

An influential lawmaker has already stepped up with a fix.

Senate Budget Chief Rob Bradley this week filed a bill (SB 1490) that would allow nonelected state employees to “accept any gift or compensation, regardless of value” if it is applied directly toward the expenses incurred from treating their or their child’s “serious disease or illness.”

Aside from cancer, the list of conditions allowing a break from the rules isn’t enumerated. Instead, it is defined as any condition which “causes significant functional impairment requiring care and treatment for an extended period of time.”

Acute medical emergencies are also included via a “serious bodily injury” clause, which opens the door for employees to accept help after car accidents or other physical trauma.

Bradley’s bill hasn’t picked up any committee references yet, but given his station in the chamber its unlikely the proposal will be ignored in the 2020 Legislative Session.