Ron DeSantis appoints his presidential campaign donor Craig Mateer to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

31 days ago in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Forum Forums Tweet Share Tweet Share

Posted: Wednesday March 27, 2024 8:30pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has announced the appointment of Craig Mateer to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

Craig Mateer, of Orlando, is the founder of CCM Capital Group and was the founder and owner of Bags, Inc. He was a campaign donor for DeSantis' failed presidential bid and DeSantis had previously appointed him to the State University System's Board of Governors and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority.

This appointment is subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate.

A position on the CFTOD board became available earlier this month when Martin Garcia, board chairman of the Ron DeSantis-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, vacated his position.

Garcia's departure came just days after CFTOD administrator Glen Gilzean took a new job as Supervisor of Elections in Orange County.

The next CFTOD board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 27, 2024.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

Dcgc287 hours ago

Not sure you’ve said this enough times since they ended the lawsuit. Perhaps if you type it out 3-4 more times someone will care

lazyboy97o8 hours ago

They don’t have control. They are cowards who are hedging for the near future that they might be targets on a wider scale.

peter114358 hours ago

Sure. In hindsight they shouldn’t have done it because the state decided to illegally retaliate in response. If I leave my house to go to the store and on the way I get mugged… sure you could say it wouldn’t have happened if I had stayed home. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have gone out or that going out was a mistake. And it would certainly be ridiculous to refer to the situation by saying that me and the mugger both made mistakes.

mkt9 hours ago

It's not a compromise. Disney doesn't actually care about the free speech argument. Disney has quietly restarted political contributions (the true reason behind all of this) and now maintains control over their land with a board that will be friendlier while reserving the right to restart the federal appeal if an unfriendly board re-emerges. At the same time DeSantis can claim he won, and his supporters will not question it. All Disney wanted was control and to stop the damage to their image.

James Alucobond9 hours ago

He was saying it was unwise to do that knowing that they were coexisting with a loose cannon. It was unwise in the same way that walking through a sketchy neighborhood at night is kind of a bad idea, but no reasonable person would say that it was your fault if you got mugged or shot as a result.

LittleBuford10 hours ago

You don’t see a difference between an action that some may not approve of (Disney wading into politics) and an action that flies in the face of established constitutional protections (a government punishing an entity for exercising its right to free speech)? Those both fall under the category of “mistake” in your view?

Tom P.10 hours ago

Bob Iger himself has said that Disney should not have waded into the political issues the way they did under Chapek.

peter1143511 hours ago

Well… they’re not supposed to be able to

Chi8412 hours ago

The only problem with that is that Disney didn’t do anything wrong to justify retaliatory legislation. If the governor made Disney the target of his stump speeches that would have been fine. If the governor told people not to go to Disney that would have been fine. In this country the government cannot use the power we delegate to it to punish political speech.

Dranth13 hours ago

Irony at its best.

peter1143513 hours ago

I see you didn’t answer but I’ll ask again. What “major mistake” did Disney make. I’m not asking you to restate all of the issues with everything that happened… just what major mistake Disney made. That should be easy right?

mmascari13 hours ago

Presumably, it was cheaper. Since Disney was paying the costs for both sides. Disney finding some type of agreement satisfactory enough to resolve the issue for them is not the same as Disney agreeing that they were wrong about anything. Not the same as Disney saying they couldn't win more. It simply Disney saying this solution is "good enough". Not "good", "not preferred", not a "win" or "loss", just "good enough". In fact, didn't they explicitly state if the agreement isn't good enough, they reserve the right to continue to fight it. That's all it tells us. There's no greater meaning in this resolution with insight about any additional details.

MR.Dis13 hours ago

Once again we see personal biases. So if Disney was so blameless, why did they give in to a compromise. Most on this forum stated it was a slam dunk win in both State and Federal Court. Hold on, Disney totally threw in the towel at the State level and has put on hold their Federal Case. Does that sound like a party that was totally right. Yes, most keep bringing up the same issues regarding how Disney was targeted in this forum, but there are those who tried to be more balanced and stated what Disney did wrong. I am not going down the path and restating all the issues, again there 1254 pages that go thru all the issues. What I suggest is to not just read those posts that agree with your opinions, but read the posts that are contrary--that is the only way you will truly see why a compromise was the only way to go.