As the Florida Senate turns …

With only three weeks left in the 2012 legislative session and the Florida Senate preparing to debate the state's $70 billion budget, the news this week is focused not on major policy decisions, but on who will become president of the Senate in 2014 and 2016.

The distraction may seem odd, given the pending policy and budget choices that will profoundly affect so many lives. So why is the Capitol Press Corp captivated by two senators attempting to wrest power away from other senators?

First, we're drawn by drama, much like "As The World Turns." More importantly, whoever becomes Senate president will have more impact on the legislative process and state's overall direction than any individual votes on pending legislation.

The Senate president and speaker of the Florida House wield tremendous power over their chambers. During my 16 years in the legislature, I have witnessed at least eight leadership contests, and each became very personal and bare-knuckled, like the script of a juicy novel.

Senators, including those newly elected, feel tremendous pressure to "sign on" early with the perceived winner. The greatest sin is to find yourself on the losing side of a leadership race. With perception playing such a key role, consultants are hired and handsomely paid for these races.

Being able to raise money for other people's campaigns often becomes the most important attribute in the race for leadership. Legislators facing re-election want a future leader who can financially help them — or at a minimum, hurt them the least.

It's in the interests of the system — the party elite, lobbyists, fundraisers and consultants — that candidates who attain leadership positions be easily accessible to big-money interests. After all, money is needed to fund these campaigns and special interests with issues before the legislature are happy to be sugar daddies. It's a matter of survival.

Once designated a future Senate president, that person's power rises exponentially and their leadership style sets the tone for how effective other members can be. Signals are sent, from the size and location of your office, to committee assignments and chairmanships, to staffing and salary decisions, even parking spaces.

Equally important, leadership decides the number of committees your bills get sent to, which is why my ethics bill was referred to five committees while the massive prison privatization bill was originally sent to just one.

Because of term limits, leadership decisions are being made earlier and earlier. A newly elected senator has only a narrow window of time to raise the money and get the support needed to vie to be Senate president.

Underlying so many votes is the perceived obligation to vote with the team you have signed onto, instead of doing what is best for constituents. Because ultimately, the money and influence needed for re-election comes from these individuals, not from your district.

For many legislators, being left out is worse than being on the wrong side of common sense. "Loyalty to the team" is more important than all else. After all, if you are kicked to the curb, how can you deliver for your folks at home?

As I write this column, alliances are being formed that will determine the next two or three Senate presidents, and the actions — and inactions — of those presidents will impact Florida for the next decade and beyond.

But politics makes strange bedfellows, and sometimes, this benefits the public.

The compromise emerging between two members — who were formerly running against one another to be Senate president in 2014 — is the result of a cutthroat move by two other senators who believed they saw an opportunity.

In this case, their power play backfired. And the press was there to catch every bit of the soap opera.