A sweeping package of changes to the way political candidates can raise money passed the Florida House on a largely party-line vote on Friday. Opponents of the bill say it favors incumbents and diminishes the voices of small-time campaign contributors.
Campaign finance reform has been a priority for House Speaker Will Weatherford. He said the bill the House passed on Friday brings some “sanity” to the process.
The biggest change it would make is to shut down candidates’ Committees of Continuous Existence, or CCEs. These fundraising groups often campaign on candidates’ behalf.
Rep. Doc Renuart (R-Ponte Vedra Beach) said, “Everyone denies responsibility for negative campaigning that was spread by these CCEs. Corporations and individuals have had unlimited ability to fill these CCEs.”
Renuart also applauded provisions that would require candidates to report their contributions more frequently than they are currently required to do.
“This bill provides a clear way to track campaign funds from businesses and individuals. When money is spent on campaigns, those responsible for funding the message will now be easily traced, and responsible parties can be held to scrutiny if needed,” he said.
But the bill didn’t find favor with 39 members, all of them Democrats.
Rep. Janet Cruz (D-Tampa) said, “By passing this bill, we’re making the process more confusing and far from balanced.”
Cruz asked her colleagues to wait one more year and pass something all members could get behind.
“This will not fix the problems or the perception of problems that give elected officials a bad name,” she said. “This bill will further the mistrust and separation between elected officials and their constituents.”
Opponents of the bill have two main sticking points. First, they disagree with a new provision allowing candidates to roll over up to $20,000 in campaign money to the next election cycle. Rep. Joe Gibbons (D-Miami) said, donors should be able to evaluate politicians after each term and ask, “Did you do what you said you were going to do? Or did you do something else? If you did something else, you should not have their money to help you because they don’t support you. They don’t want you spending their money to get you reelected. They want you out.”
But Rep. Jim Boyd (R-Bradenton) disagrees.
“By letting candidates carry over up to $20,000 from one election to another, it allows legislators to focus on governing rather than fundraising for their next cycle,” Boyd said.
The second point of contention is raising individual campaign-contribution limits from $500 to $5,000. The nonpartisan League of Women Voters has called the increase “legalized bribery,” and debators said it would minimize the voice of small-time contributors.
But bill sponsor Robert Schenck (R-Spring Hill) said, like it or not, companies and individuals have the right to exercise their political speech through donations.
“There’s going to be the same amount of money in the political process. If we keep our contribution rates at the archaic $500, it just forces more money into the shadowy third-party organizations, third-party groups that everybody in this chamber has derided over the past two days,” Schenck said.
And Travis Cummings (R-Orange Park) said, the increased contribution limit could help first-time candidates raise money more quickly.
“Rather than incumbency protection, this bill has the potential to empower challengers by making it possible to raise the money to challenge an incumbent,” he said.
Rep. Dane Eagle (R-Cape Coral) said, his constituents should applaud the proposed changes.
“I don’t know about you, but I made a promise when I was running for office that I would be open and honest with every single one of my constituents. And how do I go back to them and look them in the eye and say that I did not vote for this legislation that would bring our campaign process back into the sunlight?” Eagle said.
The Senate version of campaign finance reform is making its way through committees.