This is the second part of a series on money and influence in high-stakes health policy decisions, examining how a Tallahassee lawyer, a private law 501(c)(4), and a “taxpayer” branded advertising campaign helped shape the debate over the Broward hospital bill while keeping financial backers out of the public eye.
In the first installment of this series, The Florida Daily examined how a series of closed-door polls and merger-based questions helped shape public perception of House Bill 1047 and Senate Bill 1122. In this second part, the focus shifts from the message to the messengers: the nonprofits, vendors, and political operatives behind the ensuing “taxpayer” campaign.
When Broward residents opened their mailboxes or phones this winter, many saw the same warning.
Glossy flyers, text messages, and digital and social media ads warned of “mergers taking place in the dark,” saying HB 1047 would allow “taxpayer-funded hospital districts to merge without a referendum” and put “billions of taxpayer dollars” at risk.
Several of the materials asked residents to “Tell your elected officials: Vote No on HB 1047,” and all were labeled with the same name: “Taxpayer Healthcare Accountability.”
The ad did not reveal who built the campaign or where the money came from.
Records show that a network centered around Tallahassee lawyers, private nonprofits and a national public relations firm collectively shaped the fight over Broward’s public hospitals, leaving residents wondering who is funding the advocacy efforts that seek to speak out in their name and why.
The bill at issue would have allowed Broward Health and Memorial Healthcare System to work more closely together on services, contracts and planning under state oversight while remaining separate public hospital districts with their own boards, budgets and public meeting requirements.
“Local Taxpayer” branded advocacy group about 800 miles from Broward.
On its website and campaign materials, Taxpayers for Health Care Accountability bills itself as a citizen-led effort representing “good taxpayers” who “deserve a voice” and urges them to tell officials to oppose HB 1047.
In small print, the site identifies the group as “Florida’s Future First Project,” a nonprofit based in the state capital. Future First of Florida is organized as a 501(c)(4), a tax system that allows it to spend on public policy campaigns, but it does not have to list its donors publicly.
The filing includes a Tallahassee email address and extensive language about promoting “policy and thought leadership” to help Florida.
Florida’s Future First’s own website is sparse, offering only basic mission statement, while Taxpayers for Healthcare Accountability.com serves as a more visible advocacy group. A campaign hub with petitions, talking points against HB 1047, and repeated descriptions of the bill as a secret “merger” plan. Although both websites are divisions of the same activity, only the Broward branded website is front and center in local mailboxes and news. coverage.
Campaign finance experts say this type of structure is becoming increasingly common in legislative battles, allowing 501(c)(4)s to keep their names out of the spotlight while promoting other brands that resonate locally with voters.
The national digital influencer who told this story
The Medical Accountability Taxpayers organization has had to run 22 paid ads on Facebook and Instagram to audiences in Broward County and Tallahassee, according to Meta’s public advertising library.
These anti-HB 1047 ads used language that closely mirrored a December poll question tested by the Tallahassee-based consulting firm Tyson Group, warning that public hospital districts could change the way they operate without a public vote, which could, as one ad put it, “extend monopoly power.” This language follows up on the polls previously discussed in this series, which continued from a private survey script to a paid advertising campaign with no public vote and a less transparent framework.
In the advertising library, Mercury Public Affairs LLC, a national political consulting, digital marketing, and communications firm, is listed in Meta’s “About Advertiser” section as “…organizations that have completed our work.” [Meta’s] Verification process and claim of responsibility for this page. ” The same meta-disclosure indicates that Mercury, which has multiple offices in Florida, is “responsible for” the management of the Taxpayer Medical Liability social media pages associated with those ads, with page management based in Tampa, where Mercury has field offices.
The records don’t say exactly who hired Mercury (whose website says it has 550 customers around the world) or how much it was paid, but they do confirm that a specialized vendor was responsible for running meta ads for the taxpayer-led healthcare accountability movement opposed to the public safety-net hospital coalition bill.
The lawyer behind regular pop-up groups
“Taxpayers for Medical Responsibility” fits a pattern that has emerged around Tallahassee political attorney Natalie Kato. He is the founder of the Cato Law Firm, whose work includes representing and helping launch newly formed nonprofits and political committees during contentious legislative and local government battles.
Public records show Kato was the registered agent for A Resilient Future Florida, a group that emerged during the 2023 session in connection with legislative deliberations for the Miami Beach development. The organization was shut down as soon as the lawmakers finished their work. Seeking Lentz’s investigative reporting linked the organization to what corporate accountability reporter Jason Garcia calls a “dark lobbying” campaign that kept its donors hidden.
Boca First recently reported that Kato chairs a political committee called “A Better Boca Raton,” which paid for “One Boca” ads in support of the controversial downtown government campus project. The report raised similar transparency questions about Tallahassee-related operations that have fronted large-scale local advertising and whether residents can see who is funding advocacy efforts in their communities.
Mr. Kato currently serves in a similar role at Future First in Florida, processing applications for nonprofits while keeping the donor base confidential, according to company records and ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer data.
Florida’s Future First website was registered before the 2026 legislative session, and the taxpayer-funded healthcare accountability site went online in January, the same time that HB 1047 and its Senate companions began making their way through the Capitol.
Taken together, these examples show how groups within the same small professional circle can move from one regional policy struggle to another and help shape high-stakes decisions while making it largely clear whose interests they represent.
Parts that the general public cannot see yet
Lobbying records and interviews confirm that large private health systems and other business interests opposed HB 1047/SB 1122, arguing that additional powers for Broward’s public hospital district would distort competition.
501(c)(4)s do not require donor disclosure, so there is no public way to know which interests ultimately funded taxpayer health care liability efforts, or how much money was at stake.
Florida’s Future First, Taxpayers for Medical Accountability, attorney Natalie Kato, and Mercury Public Relations did not respond to questions about why the campaign focused on HB 1047/SB 1122, who was funding the surgery, or whether the hospital’s competitors or other health care providers helped pay for the surgery.
Broward residents can see the text of the bill, public statements from hospital districts and business groups, and a series of mailers and digital ads urging them to reject what critics call a “backdoor merger.”
What they can’t see is the name behind the logo, or the full amount of the campaign that helped shape the outcome of local health care decisions with billions of dollars of impact.
This opacity is in sharp contrast to Broward Health and Memorial Health Care Systems, which are required to publish their executive directories, budgets and meeting agendas under Florida’s Sunshine Law.
Experts say residents have a right to know who is paying them to influence their opinions and what interests those funders are at stake when it comes to the debate over public hospitals.
For now, the hospitals at the center of the fight continue to operate openly, but the networks that opposed the proposed cooperation remain largely in the dark.
