Florida's public campaign finance law has been on the books since 1986, and in the state constitution since 1998. Its one overriding goal: help qualified people run for office even if they don't have the benefit of deep pockets or political connections. Now, if 60 percent of voters approve Amendment 1 in November's election, the law will be repealed. And while even supporters of the campaign finance law agree it has major flaws, they say it can and should be saved — because the alternative is much worse.
To qualify for funding, candidates for governor must raise at least $150,000 ($100,000 for cabinet positions) to show they're "serious" about running. They must also agree to loan their campaigns no more than $25,000 and accept no more than $250,000 from a political party. Matching funds are given to candidates on a 2-to-1 basis for contributions of up to $150,000 or $100,000, depending on the office, and on a 1-to-1 basis for subsequent contributions of $250 or less. If candidates opt out of public financing, then the sky's the limit.
Ben Wilcox, head of Common Cause Florida, says Tallahassee legislators tried to undermine public campaign financing in 2005 by raising the spending cap for governor from about $6 million to $20 million. In 2006 Crist spent $20 million in private funds and over $3 million in taxpayer dollars to get to the governor's mansion. Four years later GOP gubernatorial wannabe Bill McCollum spent nearly that much in the primary — and lost.
Since the whole intent of the law was to hold down the cost of campaigns, Wilcox argues that it's not fair to ask voters for approval of public campaign financing via Amendment 1 because "the system is not functioning as it should or was intended to."
But why should voters want to keep public campaign financing in the state constitution in the first place? Jessica Levinson, director of political reform at the Center for Governmental Studies, has this answer: "To the extent that it gives any candidate the ability to run a competitive race — good, qualified candidates who otherwise wouldn't have that opportunity — then it still does serve a purpose."
Levinson authored a series of comprehensive reports focusing on the health of seven state public campaign financing laws. In her report on Florida, subtitled "A Program Sours," she offers no less than 11 recommendations on how to make the law more effective, the first being to reduce the spending caps to pre-2005 levels. Levinson says Florida's expenditure limits are so high that candidates can receive the "increasingly precious" taxpayer dollars as well as private funds, all while spending "virtually unlimited amounts."
Her report also recommends closing the loopholes on the shady 527s — the committees with righteous-sounding names like Rick Scott's "Let's Get to Work" and Democrat Alex Sink's "Hold Them Accountable." Levinson says the 527s enable donors to hide their identity while funneling unlimited amounts of cash to their candidates. She says disclosure laws that "allow potential voters to know exactly where the money's coming from and how it's being spent by these independent expenditure groups" are vitally important.
The money used to fund the races for governor and cabinet comes from the state's general revenue fund, which has been pounded by the decimation of property taxes and a slowdown in tourism. Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, it's become increasingly hard to rationalize doling out millions to wealthy candidates when people are trying to eat or get housing. Because of that, Levinson suggests that Florida take a page from Arizona's book.
Arizona is one of the few states often cited as having gotten public campaign financing right, but only after two sitting governors were forced to resign over charges of corruption, says Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. He says by 1998, voters had had enough and passed the "Citizens Clean Elections Act," a grassroots initiative funded by a combination of $5 public donations and a surcharge on lawbreakers. Because folks knew there was no way the Legislature was going to appropriate money for clean elections, Lang says, they came up with a clever financing scheme: "Basically, when you rob a bank or something more innocuous like get a parking ticket, there's a surcharge on the penalty that goes to the Clean Elections fund." Lang says the surcharge generates more than enough money to fund candidates and transfer several million dollars to the state legislature each year.
According to Lang, over two-thirds of Arizona's legislative and statewide candidates were elected using public campaign funds during the last two election cycles. And while he acknowledges that the Clean Elections Act hasn't really reduced spending (although Arizona's numbers are a lot smaller than ours), he says it has changed the way people get their money. "They're spending their time going out shaking hands, going door to door, meeting voters, doing the work of the people, instead of going to fundraisers."
Right now, the primary question on the minds of public financing advocates is whether they can devise a system that gives candidates the funds they need to run a competitive race without infringing on a candidate's First Amendment rights.
When Rick Scott surpassed the $24.9 million spending cap in the recent GOP gubernatorial primary. it entitled Bill McCollum to a dollar of public money for every dollar over the cap spent by Scott. While McCollum was salivating in anticipation, Scott was trying to convince a judge that the cap limited his ability to get his "message" out (aka, to saturate the media with more attack ads) and thus violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The first judge didn't buy it, but Scott won on appeal and was able to keep the cash out of McCollum's hands at a critical time during the primary. Jessica Levinson of CGS says voters should keep their eye on the case Davis vs. FEC which will be decided by the high court in the next term and could put an end to rescue funds.
Common Cause's Ben Wilcox says he has doubts that public campaign financing can pass the court's muster, but says the alternative is a grim one. "We'll lose those candidates that aren't either personally wealthy or feel like they can get out there and sell their souls to corporate special interests. We'll lose the real statesmen, the people who just want to serve the public."
Todd Lang is more optimistic. He says Florida voters should learn from Arizona and keep public campaign financing in place because it enables citizens to run who otherwise couldn't, allows those already in office to spend their time doing the public's business, and empowers candidates to say "No" to the insiders.
Ultimately, Lang says, "The law makes our democracy work better."
This article appears in Oct 21-27, 2010.