Randy Fine for Congress

Mr. Randy Fine currently represents Florida’s 6th Congressional District, even though he does not live there. Many people, myself included, may not realize that U.S. representatives are not required to reside in the districts they serve. As a result, someone living in Miami with enough money and party support could run to represent voters in Pensacola.

In addition to not living in the district he claims to represent, Mr. Fine has introduced several bills and used political rhetoric that reflect anti-Islamic bias. While his personal religious beliefs are not the issue, his statements and actions suggest that his position is rooted more in religious prejudice than in policy. He has also shown a pattern of racist conduct in both his actions and public remarks. Mr. Fine is a staunch supporter of the MAGA movement and Mr. Trump’s far-right political agenda.

Mr. Fine has a record of troubling conduct. In April 2023, the Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause that he violated ethics rules by threatening to withhold state funding over a personal dispute and by interfering with a council member’s public records request (Vasquez, Tyler, April 26, 2023, “Ethics commission finds probable cause against Randy Fine in dispute with West Melbourne,” Florida Today). In October 2024, County Judge Scott Blaue held Fine in contempt of court after he made an obscene gesture and a “loser” hand sign during a virtual hearing about an election paperwork dispute. Fine was ordered to complete an eight-hour anger management course (“Florida Lawmaker Ordered to Attend Anger Management Class by Judge He Is Trying to Impeach,” Latin Times, October 2, 2024. Archived from the original on May 22, 2025).

In 2020, Republican state Representative Tom Leek filed a complaint accusing Fine of unlawfully holding office in Florida. Leek argued that state law requires representatives to live in the districts they serve. Fine later rented an empty condominium in the district where he was registered to vote, prompting allegations of voter fraud (Burns, Robert, August 9, 2020, “Randy Fine’s wife voted today, but not for him,” The Space Coast Rocket. Archived from the original on November 5, 2025. Retrieved November 5, 2025).

Mr. Fine should not be re-elected to represent a district where he does not live and, therefore, does not truly represent. He is little more than a political operative backed by the Republican establishment to increase its influence in Congress.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A little history prospective…

A little history prospective… So far in the history of the United States of America there has been three Presidents that have been impeached but none removed. What is interesting is when you review the votes in both the House and the Senate, the process has be partisan throughout history. Interestingly enough, the first two impeachments were of Presidents that were Democrats and the vote to Impeach was done by a majority of House members that were republican. In the Andrew Johnson (Democrat) impeachment, there were 124 Republicans in the House and 49 Democrats. Republicans voted 122 to 45 to impeach President Johnson. In the Bill Clinton (Democrat) case, there were 228 Republicans and 205 Democrats in the House. Republicans voted 223 to 200 to impeach President Clinton. It doesn’t take a genius to see that both impeachments were partisan in nature with Republicans acting against a Democrat President. It is even more evident when you look at the Senate. In Andrew Johnson’s ca...
Read more

US Supreme Court Voting Amendment

  PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT   Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a 2/3 vote of the Senate to confirm appointments to the United States Supreme Court. SECTION 1.   SHORT TITLE . This joint resolution may be cited as the “US Supreme Court Voting Amendment”. SEC. 2.  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT . The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: “ Article   — “ SECTION 1 . Consistent with Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Senate shall require a 2/3 vote for the concurrence in the appointment of any individual to the United States Supreme Court. “ SECTION 2 . All other appointments inclusive of Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and all other Offic...
Read more

Ballroom a Nation Security Emergency?!?

  Trump calls court order halting ballroom construction ‘a national security threat atthe highest level’ In the article above, Mr. Trump claims that the Washington, D.C., District Court of Appeals’ order halting above-ground construction on the former East Wing—potentially the future Ballroom—until the lower court rules on the pending lawsuit is a matter of “great national security.” There is no basis for claiming that construction of a White House ballroom serves a “National Security” interest. Rather, Mr. Trump appears to be linking that claim to the bunker formerly located beneath the East Wing, which was removed when the East Wing was demolished. By removing both the East Wing and the bunker, Mr. Trump created the very “national interest” emergency he now cites. The court’s order bars only above-ground construction, leaving any below-ground bunker work unaffected. In short, the alleged emergency stems from Mr. Trump’s own decision to demolish the East Wing without the req...
Read more