Litigation

Blow Dealt to FL Public-Finance Provision

By Peter Hardin

A federal appeals court has dealt a blow to another state law for public financing of political candidates, blocking distribution of millions of dollars in ?matching? public funds to a cash-strapped candidate for governor in Florida.

A three-judge panel of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling (see Gavel Grab) and blocked distribution of the public ?matching? dollars to Attorney General Bill McCollum?s cash-strapped campaign.  McCollum?s multimillionaire opponent, Rick Scott, had appealed the earlier decision.

The public funding provision at issue would afford McCollum an unfair advantage, the appeals court said, according to a Christian Science Monitor article.

?At bottom, the Florida public campaign financing system appears primarily to advantage candidates with little money or who exercise restraint in fundraising,? a Miami Herald article quoted Judge William Pryor as writing. ?The system levels the electoral playing field, and that purpose is constitutionally problematic.?

The court concurred with Scott that the challenged provision “chills free speech” and burdens his “right to spend his own funds in support of his own candidacy.”

The politicians are competing for the Republican nomination in a primary set for Aug. 24.

The appeals court cited a 2008 US Supreme Court decision in which the justices struck down the so-called Millionaire?s Amendment in the federal campaign finance law. In  Davis v. FEC, the high court threw  out the so-called “millionaire’s amendment.” That provision boosted limits on contributions to a candidate for Congress if a wealthy opponent spent more than $350,000 from his own pocket on his campaign.

?We conclude that the burden that an excess spending subsidy imposes on nonparticipating candidates is harsher than the penalty in Davis,? Judge Pryor wrote.

“None of this is to say that the public financing system of Florida does not benefit the people of Florida or that public financing generally is not a system worthy of public resources,? he added. ?It is only to say that Florida ? cannot impose a special and potentially significant burden on the First Amendment rights of nonparticipating candidates who do not wish, for whatever reason, to accept public money.?

You can learn more from this recent Gavel Grab post about recent court decisions regarding public campaign-financing provisions under challenge.

Full post as published by The Gavel on August 02, 2010 (boomark / email).