Amendment 1: Repeal of Public Financing Requirement

Should public money continue to fund Florida campaigns?

In 1987, the Florida Legislature established public financing for statewide campaigns, arguing that it was becoming too expensive to run for public office and that the high costs were preventing strong candidates from running.

In 200910, the Legislature voted to place a proposed amendment on the ballot asking voters whether they want to scrap the constitutional requirement for a public financing system, which opponents deride as "welfare for politicians."

A "yes" vote for Amendment 1 would repeal the constitutional requirement for a public financing system. A "no" vote would allow the requirement to stand beyond the 2010 elections.

Although public financing originally was enacted by the Legislature, voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment making it a requirement. That's why legislators cannot eliminate or dramatically alter the public campaign finance requirement without eliminating the 1998 constitutional amendment. Approving this proposed amendment would eliminate that constitutional requirement, but the laws establishing public campaign financing would remain on the books and the Legislature could continue the program if it chose to. However, bills were introduced in 2009 to eliminate the public campaign finance laws if the constitutional requirement were lifted. Although those bills failed, it is likely they will be re-introduced next year if Amendment 1 passes. If the Legislature votes to eliminate the laws, it would be difficult politically for future lawmakers to re-enact measures that use taxpayer money to help fund political campaigns.

One of 10

Florida is among 10 states that provide public financing to gubernatorial candidates, according to Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates such programs. Nine states, including Florida, provide public financing for candidates seeking other statewide offices. Six states allow legislative candidates to take public financing, although Florida is not among them.

While Florida prepares to consider repealing the public financing requirement, there is a movement in some states, including California and Maryland, to begin offering "clean election" programs or expand existing ones.

There have been vast differences in how public financing has played out even within the same state. In Maine, for example, no winning gubernatorial candidate has ever taken the state's election funding. The program has been "extremely successful" at the legislative level, however, with 81 percent of candidates accepting public money in 2008, according to a Portland Press Herald editorial.

In Connecticut, the state is appealing a federal judge's ruling that its public financing system is unconstitutional because it places minor party candidates at a disadvantage compared with Republicans and Democrats. Connecticut has required minor party candidates to show "prior success" at the polls and collect signatures to qualify for public money.

The Wisconsin legislature, meanwhile, passed a bill in early November to provide public money to candidates for its supreme court.

"Citizens need their high court to be completely above board," said the bill's main author, Sen. Pat Kreitlow, D-Chippewa Falls. "A well-padded checkbook has no place in that chamber."

In Florida, the state budget crisis could have a dramatic impact on the fate of Amendment 1. Voters may be reluctant to continue spending millions of taxpayer dollars to finance campaigns – including attack ads – when schools are laying off teachers and many social services are being cut back.

In 2006, candidates for governor, chief financial officer, attorney general and agriculture commissioner received a combined $11 million in public funds. That money comes from the state's general fund, so it could have been spent on just about anything else.

The players

The Republican-controlled Legislature, led by Sen. Mike Haridopolos supported placing Amendment 1 on the ballot.

"It's a clear message that we are in a tight budget time," Haridopolos said in an Orlando Sentinel article published in March. "Why should we spend $10 [million] to $12 million to fund campaigns, especially when, be it Republicans or Democrats, it seems like neither one of them has a difficult time raising money?"

Haridopolos' statement is true in that most of the public money flows to the top candidates. More than $7 million of the public financing distributed in 2006 went to four heavyweight candidates for governor, who raised a total of $44 million on their own.

Republican Charlie Crist raised more than $20 million in private contributions and led all candidates by receiving $3.3 million in public money.

Public financing, however, does not seem to have provided a major boost in recent years for lower-tier Republican or Democratic candidates trying to run campaigns in such a large state that crosses many media markets. And no Florida candidate affiliated with a minor party has ever received a dime of public money even though they don't face the extra hurdles written into Connecticut's program.

Many Democratic legislators want to keep public financing. They point out that voters made it part of the state Constitution just 13 years ago.

"The voters have spoken on this issue," said then-Rep. Loranne Ausley, D-Tallahassee, after a 2008 committee hearing on the issue. "They overwhelmingly voted to put public financing in our constitution."

Sixty-four percent of the voters supported public financing in 1998. That vote came during a better state budget climate.

Democrats say the reason the program costs so much now is that the Legislature decided in 2005 – over the objections of many Democrats -- to more than triple the amount candidates could raise and still receive public money.

A candidate for governor, for example, will be allowed to raise as much as $24.9 million in 2010 and still qualify for public money. The limit had been about $5 million before the 2005 vote.

Common Cause of Florida and the League of Women Voters of Florida are among the organizations that have joined Democrats in opposing the repeal of public financing.

"It's a move in the wrong direction if you're interested in reducing the effect of money in politics," Ben Wilcox, executive director of Common Cause Florida, said last year.

Some politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, may have more self-serving motivations for their stances on Amendment 1. In recent years, Republicans have benefited more from public financing because they have raised significantly more private money than Democrats. However, some political observers say that could begin to change after President Barack Obama shattered fundraising records in 2008. If Democrats can build on Obama's success, they might become the bigger beneficiaries of public money – or at least cut into the Republicans' advantage.

As potentially significant as the amendment is, however, it may be tough for activists on either side to get the attention they're seeking from an electorate focused on the controversial Hometown Democracy amendment and the high-profile races for governor and U.S. Senate that will also be on the November 2010 ballot.

The history

Since 1994, more than $27 million of public money has been spent on campaigns for governor and other statewide offices. That number would have been much higher if former Gov. Jeb Bush had not refused to take public money during his three campaigns.

In its early years, public financing is credited with helping Democrat Lawton Chiles and Republican Bob Milligan win their respective races for governor and state comptroller in 1994. During a previous attempt to kill the program in 1997, both men pleaded with the Legislature to keep it.

"Killing public financing would essentially put a 'for sale' sign in front of the Capitol," Chiles said at the time. "It would say our elections system is tilted to the highest bidder."

But then-House Speaker Daniel Webster, R-Orlando, called public financing a "misuse of taxpayer dollars." He said political candidates should not be able to spend taxpayer dollars just because they're running for office.

While both arguments still echo today, the public financing laws look a lot different.

To receive public funds, a candidate for statewide office must have opposition and must agree to spend no more than $2 per registered voter for the gubernatorial race and $1 per voter for Cabinet races. Those limits for 2010 are $24.9 million in the gubernatorial race and $12.5 million for other Cabinet races.

Compared with other states, Florida allows candidates to raise significantly more private money and still receive public money. However, Florida is much larger than most other states, and candidates must advertise in several media markets. Some states with public financing have only one or two media markets.

In a 2008 report, the California-based Center for Governmental Studies, which bills itself as nonprofit and nonpartisan, cited the higher spending limits – and the large sums that political parties spend on behalf of candidates – as problems with Florida's public financing. The center called for 11 reforms to the system, not a repeal of public financing.

"While the introduction of public financing in Florida was meant to address the problems associated with large private contributions and special interest money, the program does not serve those purposes," the report said. "Unlimited contributions to political parties, coupled with the ability of parties to spend large sums on behalf of candidates, means that special interest groups can still exert influence over candidates. Candidates can, in effect, avoid both contribution and expenditure limits and still receive public funds."

Crist raised more than $24 million for his 2006 gubernatorial campaign, and that included $3.3 million of public money. Top Democrat Jim Davis collected more than $10 million, including $1.83 million of public funds.

The other two heavyweights in that gubernatorial race, Republican Tom Gallagher and Democrat Rod Smith, combined to raise more than $16 million overall and more than $2.2 million in public money.

To qualify for the taxpayers' help, candidates must raise a minimum of $150,000 for governor or $100,000 for Cabinet races. Only contributions from Florida residents count in those tallies. Candidates also must limit personal loans to $25,000 and contributions from political parties to $250,000.

Candidates who have opponents only in the primary election must limit their spending to 60 percent of those totals.

The state Division of Elections determines whether candidates qualify for public funds and also whether individual donations can be matched. Candidates receive the money beginning 32 days before the primary election and then every seven days thereafter. The first distribution date for 2010 was July 23, and the final one was Nov. 5.

If a candidate chooses not to participate in public financing, his or her opponent is allowed to raise as much money as the non-participating candidate and still receive public funds.

There used to be a special trust fund that helped to pay for the cost of public financing, but voters struck it down in the mid-1990s. With the status of the program in doubt, a court ruled that eliminating the funding source did not overturn the program. Since then, funding for public financing has come from the general fund.

What they are saying

"Overall, I don't think it'll make a huge difference if (public financing) goes away. The limits have gone up so high, and we've had a number of candidates who have shown that you can, if you're successful, raise a ton of money in Florida without it. Having said that, you may have some good candidate for statewide offices, especially the Cabinet positions, who will miss this money. It might impact their ability to run as good of a campaign as they otherwise could have run." – Aubrey Jewett, associate professor of Political Science, University of Central Florida.

"People who historically have adhered to (public financing) haven't been able to raise the money on their own. The candidates who have turned their backs on it usually have no problem (raising money). What does that do to the net effect of the legislation? It brings the whole thing into question. On the other hand, people desperately want the money part of politics constrained. People are very much in favor of limiting how much can be spent on campaigns and how much time can be spent, but legally neither one of those has held up well under the microscope of the Supreme Court." – Susan MacManus, distinguished university professor, University of South Florida.

"With reports of questionable appropriations possibly in return for campaign contributions, I think the Florida House should be considering new campaign-finance reforms and help restore the confidence of the people in their elected leaders." – Common Cause of Florida Executive Director Ben Wilcox, to a House of Representatives panel.

"It helps reduce special interest domination of elections and makes it possible for candidates to run who are not wealthy or bankrolled by wealthy clients. We can follow the example of Maine, Arizona, Connecticut and other states to fix this problem and return Florida government to the voters." – Fred Markham, clean elections coordinator at the Space Coast Progressive Alliance, which advocates locally, statewide and nationally for progressive policies.

"Eleven million dollars may not sound like a lot in a $66 billion budget. However, $11 million is still $11 million. These are funds that could be used for education, children services, health care, law enforcement and any number of essential services and programs. Each of these appropriations is preferable to subsidizing a candidate's campaign for statewide office." – Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers editorial

"If the state's budgetary situation improves, Florida should consider upgrading its system to full public financing for gubernatorial candidates and cabinet level candidates, instead of the partial public financing program it now has in effect." - Center for Governmental Studies, 2008 report.