State elections officials will not challenge a recent federal court ruling that threw out part of Floridas public campaign finance law, clearing the way for Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott to spend his own millions freely for the rest of the primary.
Scott had challenged the so-called millionaire provision of the public financing law, saying it was muting his message to voters by funneling additional cash to his opponents campaign.
Less than a week after a federal panel said Scott would be harmed by the provision targeting deep-pocket candidates, secretary of state spokeswoman Jennifer Krell Davis said election officials have decided not to appeal the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.
The decision will allow Scott to exceed a cap on expenditures without his opponent, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, receiving public funding equal to every additional dollar Scott spends over the cap. Scott, a multimillionaire Naples businessman, had reached the campaign cap of $2 per registered voter, which in the 2010 election cycle equals $25 million.
In analyzing our options and wanting to have finality on the issue, we felt it was the best choice not to ask for further hearings on the issue, Davis said Wednesday.
While Wednesdays decision will prevent McCollum from getting matching money for whatever Scott spends the rest of the way, the case doesnt affect the rest of the states public financing law, which makes public matching money available to all candidates who want it if they raise a certain amount on their own and then agree to abide by a spending limit. McCollum is the only candidate for governor who has taken money under that part of the law in this years campaign, having received $1.7 million in public money.
On July 30, a three-judge panel of the Atlanta federal appeals court issued the preliminary injunction that prevents the state from releasing funds to McCollum under the part of the law providing matching money for Scotts lavish spending. That money has bought extensive advertising that appears to be a factor in catapulting Scott, a former health-care executive, to front-runner status in the GOP primary.
The panel of justices agreed with Scott that the state failed to make its case that the law set up to penalize candidates for spending over a specified amount would result in fairer elections or reduce corruption, especially since the state caps individual contributions at $500.
Florida has stated that the excess spending subsidy furthers its anticorruption interest by encouraging participation in its public financing system, Judge William Pryor wrote for the 11th Circuit panel.
The court found, as federal courts generally have, that campaign spending is akin to speech, and to restrict it, states must do so in the least restrictive manner possible.
Florida has not, however, proved that the excess spending subsidy furthers the anticorruption interest in the least restrictive manner, Pryor wrote. Scott is likely to prevail on the merits of his claim.
Scott may have to return to court soon. The injunction specifically addresses the McCollum campaign. Should Scott win and face likely Democratic opponent Alex Sink, who has also said she may take public financing, he would likely have to again seek an injunction to keep state funds from flowing to Sinks campaign.
