"Prohibiting Garcia from receiving money to lobby the very committee he sits on would arguably further the state's interests of preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. However, defendants have not shown a link between quid pro quo corruption and prohibitions against Garcia lobbying other state entities," the Miami-based judge wrote in the 23-page ruling. "Similarly, defendants have shown no nexus between quid quo pro corruption and Garcia's lobbying of the federal government."

Also, she took issue with the part of the amendment that would bar officials from lobbying on "issues of policy, appropriations or procurement" before government bodies.

"(It) is this issue-based discrimination that renders the in-office restrictions presumptively unconstitutional," Bloom wrote. "As such, defendants must show that compensated lobbying on those three issues—but not others—is particularly likely to lead to quid pro quo corruption. Defendants have made no such showing, and it appears unlikely that they will succeed in doing so."

Garcia and Fernandez, who are both former state lawmakers, were part of a group of local officials who challenged the constitutionality of the restrictions in December, shortly before they were set to take effect. Bloom determined that Garcia and Fernandez were the only plaintiffs who had legal standing.

Also, she found that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the part of the amendment that prevents former state and local officials from lobbying their former government bodies for six years after leaving office. In the past, for example, former state lawmakers had been blocked from lobbying the Legislature for two years after leaving office.