http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wfsu/local-wfsu-931179.mp3
Tallahassee, FL – Florida's campaign finance laws are under fire. There are two pending lawsuits challenging the state's rules on political advertising. A case earlier in the year managed to block the use of public funds to support campaigns, and there's a constitutional amendment seeking to eliminate public campaign finance all together. Lynn Hatter reports these challenges come as the state sees millions of dollars being spent on several races and ballot initiatives this election season.
In January the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case called Citizen's United. The court said government could not ban political spending by corporations and that such bans violate corporate free speech. The decision paved the way for large groups to drop millions of dollars into campaigns across the country. In the U.S. Senate, race conservative groups from outside the state have spent over two-million dollars in the last three weeks for Republican candidate Marco Rubio who leads Independent candidate Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek. Ben Wilcox sits on the board of Common Cause, a government watchdog group.
"We all see it these days," Wilcox said. "There's so much advertising on TV and there'll be a little message at the bottom of the ad, 'paid for by citizens for perfect world" or some kind of nice sounding name, and there's no way for the average voters to see whose behind the ad.'"
There are two cases pending in Florida based on the Supreme Court's ruling. Recently, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle heard a challenge from a group of five Southwest Florida activists wanting to run a 600-dollar ad opposing Amendment Four. The group wants to pool their money to pay for the ad but under state law, that means they have to register as a political action committee or PAC. Their attorney, Paul Sherman, says the state rules violate their free speech rights.
"What the Supreme Court said in Citizens' United is that if corporations want to speak out in elections, it can't be forced to do so through a burdensome political committee," Sherman said. "But that's exactly what our clients have to do. They have to set up a political committee. And that's unconstitutional. They can't be treated worse than a corporation."
But Jennifer Krell Davis, with the Florida Department of State, says the high court's ruling doesn't apply to Florida law.
"We don't believe it applies in that because they're trying not to have to form a PAC," she said.
In a Gainesville federal court, a large advocacy group is suing to overturn the state's rules on Electioneering Communication Organizations or ECO's. Those groups run TV and radio ads 30 to 60 days before an election. The National Organization for Marriage says it shouldn't have to register with the state. The group's attorney, Randy Elf, points to part of the Supreme Court's decision that says the test for what is and isn't an ECO is confusing. But the state's Krell Davis disagrees, saying Florida has no such test.
"And what they're trying to claim is that the case called the definition confusing, and since we're using the same definition, we don't think it applies in either case," she said.
There's a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that, if approved would eliminate what critics of matching campaign finance dollars call, "welfare for politicians." Common Cause's Ben Wilcox says the ballot initiative and court cases show people are largely missing the point of campaign finance law.
"Public campaign financing is meant to level the playing field between well-funded candidates and candidates that don't have much money, and it's also meant to hold down the cost of campaigns," Wilcox said. "That's why you have voluntary spending limits that candidates agree to abide by. So I think both of those goals, if the finance system is set up properly, are both worthy goals that I think the public would support."
Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott challenged the state's campaign finance rules on matching funds during the primary. The result blocked his then-rival Attorney General Bill McCollum's attempt to collect a dollar for dollar match once Scott cleared the voluntary spending cap. McCollum said he couldn't keep up with Scott's spending.