Politics
Court Sets Aside Campaign Finance Provision
Judge defended the part of the law that provides money for candidates who abide by the spending limit
Around the State
With the fight largely over and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a similar law in Arizona, a federal judge on Wednesday quietly set aside a portion of Florida’s campaign finance law increasing payments to publicly financed candidates who face challenges from privately backed candidates willing to bust state spending caps.
In a footnote to the 2010 gubernatorial election, in which Gov. Rick Scott spent more than $70 million in a largely self-financed campaign, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle officially ordered the state to no longer enforce the particular part of the state’s matching money law. Scott had challenged it as he approached the spending caps during the GOP primary, raising the possibility of increased funding for then-Attorney General Bill McCollum, Scott’s opponent.
By the end, no one was really defending the law. McCollum had withdrawn his personal intervention to try to keep the provision on the books after losing the election. Secretary of State Kurt Browning’s office, having already said it wouldn’t object to a permanent injunction, was also no longer fighting for it.
“Our position hasn’t really changed,” spokesman Chris Cate said in the wake of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona law.
Hinkle had initially rejected Scott’s request to temporarily block the law last year, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling on appeal. The case had largely stood in limbo since then, with Hinkle saying he wanted to see what the Supreme Court did with the Arizona law.
A split court ruled 5-4 on Monday that such provisions violate the First Amendment by encouraging candidates like Scott to limit their own speech to avoid triggering increased state spending for their opponents. Supporters of the laws had argued they helped decrease the influence of money on politics.
“The Florida and Arizona provisions are not identical,” Hinkle wrote, “but they are similar enough to make understandable the Florida secretary of state’s decision not to further defend Florida’s provision, especially in light of the 11th Circuit’s ruling on appeal in this very case, and similar enough to make it appropriate to enter an injunction and final judgment without appointing an independent attorney to defend the Florida statute.”
Like the Supreme Court did in the Arizona case, Hinkle didn’t strike down the state’s broader public financing law, which provides the money for candidates who agree to abide by the spending limit. Hinkle actually defended that part of the state law.
“Doing this was constitutional,” he wrote. “No party to this lawsuit has contended otherwise.”
__
In a footnote to the 2010 gubernatorial election, in which Gov. Rick Scott spent more than $70 million in a largely self-financed campaign, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle officially ordered the state to no longer enforce the particular part of the state’s matching money law. Scott had challenged it as he approached the spending caps during the GOP primary, raising the possibility of increased funding for then-Attorney General Bill McCollum, Scott’s opponent.
By the end, no one was really defending the law. McCollum had withdrawn his personal intervention to try to keep the provision on the books after losing the election. Secretary of State Kurt Browning’s office, having already said it wouldn’t object to a permanent injunction, was also no longer fighting for it.
“Our position hasn’t really changed,” spokesman Chris Cate said in the wake of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona law.
Hinkle had initially rejected Scott’s request to temporarily block the law last year, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling on appeal. The case had largely stood in limbo since then, with Hinkle saying he wanted to see what the Supreme Court did with the Arizona law.
A split court ruled 5-4 on Monday that such provisions violate the First Amendment by encouraging candidates like Scott to limit their own speech to avoid triggering increased state spending for their opponents. Supporters of the laws had argued they helped decrease the influence of money on politics.
“The Florida and Arizona provisions are not identical,” Hinkle wrote, “but they are similar enough to make understandable the Florida secretary of state’s decision not to further defend Florida’s provision, especially in light of the 11th Circuit’s ruling on appeal in this very case, and similar enough to make it appropriate to enter an injunction and final judgment without appointing an independent attorney to defend the Florida statute.”
Like the Supreme Court did in the Arizona case, Hinkle didn’t strike down the state’s broader public financing law, which provides the money for candidates who agree to abide by the spending limit. Hinkle actually defended that part of the state law.
“Doing this was constitutional,” he wrote. “No party to this lawsuit has contended otherwise.”
__
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment on This Story