With time running out in the 2022 legislative session, the Florida House on Thursday approved a controversial campaign-finance bill that would make it more difficult for groups to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.
The measure, which is now ready for action by Gov. Ron DeSantis, also would prevent local governments from sending mailers to voters to promote or oppose proposed referendums, ballot initiatives or issues.
The prohibition would apply even if the communications are limited to factual information, a provision that drew strenuous pushback from House Democrats before Thursday鈥檚 80-40 vote in favor of the measure (HB 721).
The Senate tucked the communications prohibition into an amendment on the bill, which, in part, would place a $3,000 limit on contributions from out-of-state donors to political committees trying to collect enough petition signatures to move forward with citizens鈥� initiatives. A federal judge less than a year ago struck down a similar law, which did not include the provision about local government communications.
The bill would not bar local governments from 鈥減osting factual information on a government website or in printed materials;鈥� hosting or providing information at public forums; or providing 鈥渇actual information in response to an inquiry.鈥�
The prohibition is aimed at keeping local officials from trying to influence elections on issues such as local tax increases, House Republicans argued during floor debate.
鈥淚 think it鈥檚 self-dealing for the government to use taxpayer dollars to try to take a side and sway the outcome of an election, and I think that鈥檚 wrong,鈥� Rep. Spencer Roach, R-North Fort Myers, said.
But Rep. Felicia Robinson, a Miami Gardens Democrat who previously served on the city council, said the communications ban left her in 鈥渢otal disbelief.鈥�
鈥淲e are supposed to be the Sunshine State where we have everything out in the open. And this is telling our constituents, our residents 鈥� that we don鈥檛 want them to know what they鈥檙e voting on,鈥� she said.
But Rep. Mike Giallombardo, R-Cape Coral, pointed to a Lee County School Board referendum in 2018.
The school district spent money on communications such as flyers that were put in kids鈥� backpacks and mailers sent to voters鈥� homes 鈥減ushing poor me, poor me, but spending a million dollars on doing it,鈥� he said.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 criminal,鈥� Giallombardo said. 鈥淚t should not be allowed.鈥�
But Rep. Joe Geller, D-Aventura, said that when he was mayor of North Bay Village, officials put a referendum on the ballot asking if citizens wanted to incur bonded debt to improve the village鈥檚 sewer system.
鈥淧eople want to know why you鈥檙e doing it. The citizens want the information. What is it going to accomplish, how much is it going to cost,鈥� Geller said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e achieved a reasonable compromise. You can鈥檛 campaign. You can鈥檛 say vote, you can鈥檛 twist it, but you can tell people what it is.鈥�
Rep. Dan Daley, D-Sunrise, argued that the proposal is another attempt by the Republican-dominated Legislature to chip away at local governments鈥� home rule, an issue known as preemption.
鈥淲e find new ways to screw with cities,鈥� he said.
But Rep. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, said the measure protects taxpayers, arguing that 鈥渇or too long, cities and counties have been exploiting the loophole鈥� that allows local governments to educate voters about issues.
鈥淚鈥檝e seen it happen time and time and time again. Now we鈥檝e got to the time where, yep, we鈥檙e pretty much fed up with taxpayers being screwed, to use Rep. Daley鈥檚 analogy,鈥� Ingoglia said. 鈥淐ities and counties are using money to influence elections when they shouldn鈥檛, and they鈥檙e using the education loophole. What this is saying is that you can鈥檛 do that anymore. Stop playing games with taxpayer money.鈥�
The underlying bill with the cap on contributions to ballot-initiative petition drives drew opposition from Democrats and a lone Republican during Senate debate Monday.
Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, said the proposal is unconstitutional because it would limit speech.
"We should not limit people's ability to speak, period,鈥� he said.
But Sen. Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero, argued the bill targets 鈥渂illionaires who have contributed literally tens of millions of dollars to influence鈥� states鈥� constitutions.
The Senate approved the measure in a 22-16 vote.
In July, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor struck down a similar law that would have capped contributions at $3,000 during the signature-gathering phase. The 2021 law applied to contributions from in-state and out-of-state donors.
Winsor found the law unconstitutionally restricted political speech.
鈥淔irst, contributions to political committees that advocate for ballot initiatives are 鈥榖eyond question a very significant form of political expression,鈥欌�� Winsor wrote, partially quoting from legal precedent.
Winsor also rejected a state argument, echoed by Rodrigues on Monday, that the cap should be upheld because it would only restrict contributions during the signature-gathering phase of ballot-initiative campaigns.
The cap would not apply after committees have submitted enough petition signatures to get on the ballot.
鈥淚t is unclear 鈥� why this would matter for First Amendment purposes,鈥� wrote Winsor, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, adding that nothing in previous court decisions about campaign contribution limits 鈥渟uggested that states could restrict speech and expression surrounding ballot initiatives so long as the restriction covered only part of the initiative process.鈥�
Supporters of this year鈥檚 bill have tried to draw a distinction because the proposed limit would only apply to out-of-state donors. Most of the legislative session will end Friday, though lawmakers will have to vote Monday on a new state budget.
