A bill to raise the limits on campaign contributions to state candidates has raised the reflexive ire of liberals and the progressive press, but proponents say it promotes free speech and counters shadowy special-interest groups.
"Campaign finance limits that have not kept pace with rising media costs have contributed to the proliferation of third-party advocacy groups -- electioneering communication organizations and 527s that have no limit at all," a campaign consultant told Sunshine State News.
Florida's current $500 cap on direct donations to state candidates is among the lowest in the nation.
Senate Bill 1690, sponsored by Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, would raise the threshold to $10,000 for governor, $5,000 for Cabinet offices and $2,500 for legislative candidates.
The measure cleared the Senate Rules Subcommittee on Ethics and Elections by a 7-5 vote this week.
Democrats, and a few Republicans, oppose the bill, claiming it will give well-heeled contributors greater influence in elections. Media reports critiqued the measure, calculating that the value of legal campaign contributions would skyrocket "2,000 percent."
But political observers note that the cost of TV advertising has been soaring for years while contribution caps have stayed static.
Last fall, during the general elections, one week of political TV ads (1,000 points) cost $100,000 in the West Palm Beach market, more than $250,000 in Tampa and Orlando, and $350,000 in Miami.
"Seven-hundred checks, at the current $500 maximum, would have to be raised to cover one week of Miami television," said an operative, who declined to be identified.
Contrary to popular perception, and seldom explained in the media, the existing cash cap gives Democratic candidates a competitive advantage. That's because Democrats receive large chunks of cash through labor unions and the Florida Democratic Party itself. Neither is subject to the $500 limit.
And despite progressives' complaints that de la Portilla's bill does not tighten disclosure rules, the Democratic Party benefits from the status quo because its funds are lumped together, making it difficult to dissect the donation trail.
"By encouraging special interests to seek creative methods of circumventing the limits on campaign contributions, those limits may paradoxically defeat the announced goals of the self-proclaimed good government groups such as Common Cause, which seek to minimize the role of money in politics," says Robert Sanchez, policy director for the conservative James Madison Institute in Tallahassee.
"That, in turn, helps to maximize the clout of favored groups such as labor unions, which can and do inject their manpower and their in-kind resources into election campaigns."
Going further, Sanchez argues that "arbitrarily limiting political contributions imposes a limit on free speech, which is supposed to be protected by the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that money equals speech in the political discourse, and has come down against efforts to curb speech through contribution limits or bans.
Sanchez said that, as a general rule, contribution limits give incumbents an unfair advantage over challengers in elections where name recognition is increasingly an important determinative factor.
"And, lets face it, some elected officials shamelessly use government resources for self-promotion," he added.
While JMI does not take positions on specific legislation, the institute espouses free-market solutions.And Sanchez says openness is crucial.
"Far better than arbitrary limits would be to require the complete and timely disclosure and online posting of the true source of all contributions -- prior to the start of voting -- so that interested voters may see whos supporting whom and judge for themselves," he said.
De la Portilla, R-Miami, did not return messages left by Sunshine State News. Senate President Mike Haridopolos declined to comment.
--
Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.
