CopyCited 53 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15897, 2010 WL 2977614
...That system also provides participating candidates like
McCollum with a subsidy when a nonparticipating opponent spends in excess of
$2 for each registered Florida voter, which for this election means almost $25
million. Fla. Stat. §§
106.34,
106.355.
On July 7, as his campaign expenditures were rapidly approaching the $25
million threshold, Scott filed a complaint in the district court and asked the court to
enjoin preliminarily the operation of the excess spending subsidy....
...The Florida public
financing system provides a subsidy to a participating candidate when an opposing
candidate who has chosen not to participate in public financing exceeds the
statutory expenditure limit, which for this election is $24,901,170, or $2 for each
registered voter. Fla. Stat. §§
106.34,
106.355. Under the public financing system,
if Scott spends over this amount, any participating opponent in the Republican
primary for the nomination of governor is entitled to one public dollar for every
dollar Scott spends over the limit. Id. §
106.355.
In his declaration, Scott alleged that, as he has approached this limit, he has
reduced his campaign spending “in a drastic manner” to ensure that he is enabling
McCollum’s campaign for as few days as possible....
...Scott does not
expect that his reluctance to spend money on his campaign will abate when he
exceeds that threshold. After he exceeds the threshold, Scott will “engage in less
campaign speech than would be the case if [his] opponents were not eligible to
receive subsidies under section 106.355.” Scott explains that he has a
constitutional right to avoid providing his opponents “with a competitive
advantage and in turn permitting them to counteract and diminish [his] campaign
8
speech.”
B....
...§
106.33(3); limit contributions from national, state, and
county executive committees of a political party to $250,000 in the aggregate (this
limit applies to all candidates participating or not), id.; submit disclosure and
reporting statements of each qualified contribution, id. §
106.35(3)(a); and submit
a post-election audit of the campaign account, id....
...See id. §
106.011(18)(c).
After the Division of Elections for the State of Florida certifies a candidate
as eligible to participate in the system, the candidate is entitled to receive matching
funds for certain qualifying contributions. Id. §
106.35....
...§
106.08(1)(a), but become eligible as participants in the public
financing system to receive matching state funds, up to $250, for each contribution
12
made by a Florida resident after September 1 of the calendar year before the
election, id. §
106.35(2)(b)....
...contributions from an individual that exceed $250. For each dollar of a qualifying
contribution that makes up all or part of the initial $150,000 in contributions a
gubernatorial candidate must initially raise, the state provides the participating
candidate $2 in public funds. Id. § 106.35(2)(a)(1). After the participating
candidate raises the initial $150,000 in contributions, the state matches qualifying
contributions dollar for dollar. Id. § 106.35(2)(a)(2).
In 1991, the Florida Legislature adopted section 106.355, which includes the
excess spending subsidy that is the focus of this appeal. Section 106.355 provides
a subsidy to a participating candidate when an opposing candidate who does not
participate in public financing exceeds the statutory expenditure limit, which for
this election is $24,901,170. 1991 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 91-107 § 24 (codified
at Fla. Stat. § 106.355)....
...excess spending subsidy is tied to the spending of the participating candidate’s
opponent; Florida provides the participating candidate a dollar for every dollar his
nonparticipating opponent expends above the statutory expenditure limit. Fla. Stat.
§ 106.355....
...Procedural History
On July 7, after Scott decided that his expenditures would trigger the public
subsidy, Scott filed a complaint against Dawn Roberts, the Interim Secretary of
State of Florida. Scott asked the district court to declare unconstitutional the
provision of section 106.355 that creates the excess spending subsidy and to enjoin
the Secretary from enforcing it....
...declared similar state laws unconstitutional. See McComish, slip op. 9139; Green
Party of Conn. v. Garfield,
648 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Conn. 2009). We agree with
the district court that if McCollum did not know that he could not comfortably rely
on a subsidy under section
106.355 in the event that an opponent ran an expensive
campaign it cannot be said that his reliance was reasonable.
Moreover, the finding of the district court that Scott did not purposefully
delay filing suit is not clearly erroneous....
...Secretary of State of Florida, Dawn K. Roberts, and all officers, agents, and
employees of the office of the Secretary of State are PRELIMINARILY
ENJOINED from releasing funds to Ira William (“Bill”) McCollum Jr., under the
excess spending subsidy of section 106.355 of the Florida Election Campaign
43
Financing Act, Fla. Stat. § 106.355....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 224, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 624, 1994 WL 149669
...Stat., is ambiguous. 4. That the Legislature intended to provide funds to the Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund in an amount sufficient to fund qualifying candidates pursuant to the provisions of §§
106.30-106.36, Fla. Stat. 5. That §§
106.32(1) and
106.35, Fla....
...Stat., constitute the consent of the public to expend public funds and consequently constitute a valid appropriation made by law. 6. That the use of a formula in an appropriation rather than the use of a specific dollar amount or a specific funding source is a valid appropriation. 7. Sections
106.32 and
106.35, Fla....
...[4] Thus, the definitions in chapter 216 do not control the outcome of this case. The Republican Party argues that the failure to identify a specific dollar amount to be transferred renders the funding provision null. We do not agree. Section
106.34 sets limits on the amounts candidates can spend. Section
106.35 establishes formulas and thus controls the distribution of funds to qualified candidates....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...That system also provides participating candidates like
McCollum with a subsidy when a nonparticipating opponent spends in excess of
$2 for each registered Florida voter, which for this election means almost $25
million. Fla. Stat. §§
106.34,
106.355.
On July 7, as his campaign expenditures were rapidly approaching the $25
million threshold, Scott filed a complaint in the district court and asked the court to
enjoin preliminarily the operation of the excess spending subsidy....
...The Florida public
financing system provides a subsidy to a participating candidate when an opposing
candidate who has chosen not to participate in public financing exceeds the
statutory expenditure limit, which for this election is $24,901,170, or $2 for each
registered voter. Fla. Stat. §§
106.34,
106.355. Under the public financing system,
if Scott spends over this amount, any participating opponent in the Republican
primary for the nomination of governor is entitled to one public dollar for every
dollar Scott spends over the limit. Id. §
106.355.
In his declaration, Scott alleged that, as he has approached this limit, he has
reduced his campaign spending “in a drastic manner” to ensure that he is enabling
McCollum’s campaign for as few days as possible....
...Scott does not
expect that his reluctance to spend money on his campaign will abate when he
exceeds that threshold. After he exceeds the threshold, Scott will “engage in less
campaign speech than would be the case if [his] opponents were not eligible to
receive subsidies under section 106.355.” Scott explains that he has a
constitutional right to avoid providing his opponents “with a competitive
advantage and in turn permitting them to counteract and diminish [his] campaign
8
speech.”
B....
...§
106.33(3); limit contributions from national, state, and county
executive committees of a political party to $250,000 in the aggregate (this limit
applies to all candidates participating or not), id.; submit disclosure and reporting
statements of each qualified contribution, id. §
106.35(3)(a); and submit a post-
election audit of the campaign account, id....
...See id. §
106.011(18)(c).
After the Division of Elections for the State of Florida certifies a candidate
as eligible to participate in the system, the candidate is entitled to receive matching
funds for certain qualifying contributions. Id. §
106.35....
...§
106.08(1)(a), but become eligible as participants in the public
financing system to receive matching state funds, up to $250, for each contribution
12
made by a Florida resident after September 1 of the calendar year before the
election, id. §
106.35(2)(b)....
...contributions from an individual that exceed $250. For each dollar of a qualifying
contribution that makes up all or part of the initial $150,000 in contributions a
gubernatorial candidate must initially raise, the state provides the participating
candidate $2 in public funds. Id. § 106.35(2)(a)(1). After the participating
candidate raises the initial $150,000 in contributions, the state matches qualifying
contributions dollar for dollar. Id. § 106.35(2)(a)(2).
In 1991, the Florida Legislature adopted section 106.355, which includes the
excess spending subsidy that is the focus of this appeal. Section 106.355 provides
a subsidy to a participating candidate when an opposing candidate who does not
participate in public financing exceeds the statutory expenditure limit, which for
this election is $24,901,170. 1991 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 91-107 § 24 (codified
at Fla. Stat. § 106.355)....
...excess spending subsidy is tied to the spending of the participating candidate’s
opponent; Florida provides the participating candidate a dollar for every dollar his
nonparticipating opponent expends above the statutory expenditure limit. Fla. Stat.
§ 106.355....
...Procedural History
On July 7, after Scott decided that his expenditures would trigger the public
subsidy, Scott filed a complaint against Dawn Roberts, the Interim Secretary of
State of Florida. Scott asked the district court to declare unconstitutional the
provision of section 106.355 that creates the excess spending subsidy and to enjoin
the Secretary from enforcing it....
...declared similar state laws unconstitutional. See McComish, slip op. 9139; Green
Party of Conn. v. Garfield,
648 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Conn. 2009). We agree with
the district court that if McCollum did not know that he could not comfortably rely
on a subsidy under section
106.355 in the event that an opponent ran an expensive
campaign it cannot be said that his reliance was reasonable.
Moreover, the finding of the district court that Scott did not purposefully
delay filing suit is not clearly erroneous....
...Secretary of State of Florida, Dawn K. Roberts, and all officers, agents, and
employees of the office of the Secretary of State are PRELIMINARILY
ENJOINED from releasing funds to Ira William (“Bill”) McCollum Jr., under the
excess spending subsidy of section 106.355 of the Florida Election Campaign
43
Financing Act, Fla. Stat. § 106.355....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 625791, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2059
...Section
106.36(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the “division shall review each request for contributions from the Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund and certify whether the candidate is eligible for such contributions. Notice of the certification decision shall be provided to the candidate.” §
106.35(1) (footnote omitted)....
...*688 (4) Distribution of funds shall be made beginning on the 32nd day prior to the primary and every 7 days thereafter. (5) The division shall adopt rules providing for the weekly reports and certification and distribution of funds pursuant thereto required by this section. § 106.35(3)-(5) (footnote omitted)....
...it would subvert the purpose of the Act to permit the Division to refuse to determine whether the candidate met the threshold amount for matching funds. Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the Division to conduct its review pursuant to section 106.35(1), and determine whether Thurston met the threshold for distribution of matching funds....
