Judge Blocks Contribution Limit in Ballot Drives
"If anything, the amendment (this year's revision) undermines the asserted interest in preventing fraud," U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor wrote.
June 17, 2022 at 09:23 AM
4 minute read
A federal judge has rejected an attempt by Florida lawmakers to limit contributions to political committees supporting ballot initiatives, saying it violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor issued an 18-page ruling Wednesday that included a permanent injunction against the $3,000 contribution limit, which passed in 2021 and was revised this year. The limit was part of long-running efforts by Republican leaders to make it harder to pass ballot initiatives to amend the state Constitution.
Winsor also disputed arguments by attorneys for the Florida Elections Commission, the defendant in the lawsuit, that the contribution limit would help curb fraud in the crucial process of collecting petition signatures to put initiatives on the ballot.
"Here, there is no decent fit between the restriction and the asserted anti-fraud purpose," wrote Winsor, who was appointed to the federal bench by former Republican President Donald Trump. "For one, the FEC (Florida Elections Commission) shows no clear connection between large individual contributions and fraud. In the FEC's view, the fraud illustrates how Florida's ballot initiative process is susceptible to the influence of large donors who fund petition gatherers, who in turn have incentives to falsify petition signatures. But the FEC offers no reason to think that large individual contributions — as opposed to large aggregate contributions — are to blame for this dynamic."
The 2021 law placed a $3,000 limit on contributions from in-state and out-of-state donors to political committees gathering petition signatures. Winsor last year issued a preliminary injunction to block the law, saying it violated First Amendment rights to political expression.
The Legislature this year revised the law to apply the $3,000 limit only to out-of-state donors. The state's attorneys argued that the change made the lawsuit moot.
Winsor acknowledged in Wednesday's ruling that the revision was a "complicating factor." Nevertheless, he ruled the limit unconstitutional.
"If anything, the amendment (this year's revision) undermines the asserted interest in preventing fraud," Winsor wrote. "The FEC has argued that (the law limiting contributions) is important to curb the incentives that 'big money' has in facilitating fraud. But the amendment will allow unlimited contributions to political committees that support ballot initiatives, so long as the money comes from Floridians. This will only undermine any suggestion that there is an adequate 'fit' between the law and the asserted interest."
The judge added, "In short, the parties have not shown that the new law will change anything, so it provides no basis to deny the requested relief. This order will enjoin the FEC from enforcing the contribution limit against plaintiffs as to donations to political committees that sponsor a ballot initiative."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and political committees filed the lawsuit, arguing that the contribution limit unconstitutionally restricted speech and was designed to prevent citizens' initiatives from reaching the ballot.
Committees typically have to raise and spend millions of dollars to collect enough petition signatures to take issues to voters. To get on the 2024 ballot, for example, committees would need to submit 891,589 valid signatures.
The law would have applied only to contributions made during the petition-gathering process — not to contributions made after initiatives qualify for the ballot.
Voters during the past two decades have used the initiative process to make a series of high-profile changes, such as legalizing medical marijuana and increasing the minimum wage.
But Republican lawmakers have taken a series of steps to clamp down on the initiative process, arguing that many of the issues should be decided by the Legislature, rather than by amending the Constitution.
GOP lawmakers have frequently railed against large donors funding initiative drives. But supporters of initiatives argue that the Legislature often ignores the will of voters and that ballot initiatives are the only route to pass certain issues.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readAs Unpredictability Rises, Gov't Law Practices Expect Trump Bump. Especially in Florida
5 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readWhat Will Happen to the Nominees in Florida's Southern and Middle Districts?
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York State Authorizes Stand-Alone Business Interruption Insurance Policies
- 2Buyer Beware: Continuity of Coverage in Legal Malpractice Insurance
- 3‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Some Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 4BCLP Joins Saudi Legal Market with Plans to Open Two Offices
- 5White & Case Crosses $4M in PEP, $3B in Revenue in 'Breakthrough Year'
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250