![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ericadawn16As self-financed gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott nears a crucial cap, he has filed a lawsuit hoping to keep his competitors from benefiting from his spending.
Scott, a Naples-based health care executive with a large personal fortune, has eschewed public financing for his campaign. But Florida’s campaign finance law provides for matching publicly-financed funding for candidates once one member of the races spends $24.9 million, or $2 for every registered voter in the state. Once an independently financed campaign crosses that threshold, all opponents are entitled to matching funds up to $4 for every registered voter, or about $49.8 million this year.
Scott has already spent $21 million of his own money, according to a lawsuit he filed in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee. The suit contends the law that gives his candidates a dollar-for-dollar match for any amount Scott spends more than $24.9 million violates Scott’s First Amendment rights to political speech. Scott’s suit also claims he is doubly penalized by the rule because he plans to support whomever wins the Republican nomination for governor, a candidate who could be attacked with matching funds given to candidates from other parties.
“Rick Scott filed suit in the federal court to protect his First and 14th Amendment rights and block taxpayer subsidy of political campaigns,” Scott’s campaign said in a prepared statement. “Simply put, Scott, who has campaigned on holding government accountable hopes to put an end to what former Gov. Jeb Bush once called as ‘welfare for politicians.’”
Scott’s opponent in the August primary Fla. Attorney General Bill McCollum used the lawsuit as a platform for an attack.
“He’s spending the millions he ripped off of taxpayers to fund a self image repair campaign that has stopped at nothing to cover his past misdeeds and distort Bill McCollum’s record of conservative leadership,” said Matt Williams, McCollum’s campaign manager, in a press release. “Rick Scott will have his day in court, but all this legal wrangling just proves what we already know. No amount of money – not even the more than 20 million Rick Scott has spent to date – will cover his record of fraud, hypocrisy and doublespeak.”
Lucille Taylor, a assistant professor at Ave Maria School of Law who specializes in elections law, said Scott’s complaint does have a strong chance of being upheld thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 2008, the court struck down a federal law similar to Florida’s statute.
There is also a similar case involving state elections in Arizona that a district court struck down only to be reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That case appears to be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court this fall, but that would be too late to help decide Scott’s case.
“(Scott) has a very credible argument,” Taylor said. “But he gets no relief unless (the district court is) willing to issue an injunction.”
In otherwords, the only way Scott’s suit will have an impact on his primary campaign is for the district court to hold up payments to McCollum and other candidates while the issue is being decided.
Taylor said she expected the court to rule quickly on the matter since it involves a pressing concern.
Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman called Scott’s suit an attempt to “buy the Governor’s office.”
“Rick Scott’s frivolous lawsuit once again shows Floridians that he thinks he is above the law,” Thurman said in a release. “While this arrogance is what we have come to expect from the man whose company committed the largest Medicare fraud in U.S. history, Floridians deserve better and expect more.”
Republican Party leadership could not be reached for comment.
The issue of public financed elections has typically found strong opposition from the state’s Republican leaders. Jeb Bush eschewed public financing in his gubernatorial runs. But the Tampa Tribune reported that McCollum said he opted for public money as a way to help keep up with Scott’s deep pockets.
Scott, a Naples-based health care executive with a large personal fortune, has eschewed public financing for his campaign. But Florida’s campaign finance law provides for matching publicly-financed funding for candidates once one member of the races spends $24.9 million, or $2 for every registered voter in the state. Once an independently financed campaign crosses that threshold, all opponents are entitled to matching funds up to $4 for every registered voter, or about $49.8 million this year.
Scott has already spent $21 million of his own money, according to a lawsuit he filed in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee. The suit contends the law that gives his candidates a dollar-for-dollar match for any amount Scott spends more than $24.9 million violates Scott’s First Amendment rights to political speech. Scott’s suit also claims he is doubly penalized by the rule because he plans to support whomever wins the Republican nomination for governor, a candidate who could be attacked with matching funds given to candidates from other parties.
“Rick Scott filed suit in the federal court to protect his First and 14th Amendment rights and block taxpayer subsidy of political campaigns,” Scott’s campaign said in a prepared statement. “Simply put, Scott, who has campaigned on holding government accountable hopes to put an end to what former Gov. Jeb Bush once called as ‘welfare for politicians.’”
Scott’s opponent in the August primary Fla. Attorney General Bill McCollum used the lawsuit as a platform for an attack.
“He’s spending the millions he ripped off of taxpayers to fund a self image repair campaign that has stopped at nothing to cover his past misdeeds and distort Bill McCollum’s record of conservative leadership,” said Matt Williams, McCollum’s campaign manager, in a press release. “Rick Scott will have his day in court, but all this legal wrangling just proves what we already know. No amount of money – not even the more than 20 million Rick Scott has spent to date – will cover his record of fraud, hypocrisy and doublespeak.”
Lucille Taylor, a assistant professor at Ave Maria School of Law who specializes in elections law, said Scott’s complaint does have a strong chance of being upheld thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 2008, the court struck down a federal law similar to Florida’s statute.
There is also a similar case involving state elections in Arizona that a district court struck down only to be reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That case appears to be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court this fall, but that would be too late to help decide Scott’s case.
“(Scott) has a very credible argument,” Taylor said. “But he gets no relief unless (the district court is) willing to issue an injunction.”
In otherwords, the only way Scott’s suit will have an impact on his primary campaign is for the district court to hold up payments to McCollum and other candidates while the issue is being decided.
Taylor said she expected the court to rule quickly on the matter since it involves a pressing concern.
Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman called Scott’s suit an attempt to “buy the Governor’s office.”
“Rick Scott’s frivolous lawsuit once again shows Floridians that he thinks he is above the law,” Thurman said in a release. “While this arrogance is what we have come to expect from the man whose company committed the largest Medicare fraud in U.S. history, Floridians deserve better and expect more.”
Republican Party leadership could not be reached for comment.
The issue of public financed elections has typically found strong opposition from the state’s Republican leaders. Jeb Bush eschewed public financing in his gubernatorial runs. But the Tampa Tribune reported that McCollum said he opted for public money as a way to help keep up with Scott’s deep pockets.
