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
Election and Political Law
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
© 2024 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 AllBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readFlorida-Based Big Law Donations to Harris Eclipse Trump's Haul in Key Pre-Election Stretch
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Support Magistrates: Statutorily Significant
- 2Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 3Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 4Monday Newspaper
- 5How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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