TALLAHASSEE — Rick Scott, the deep-pocketed Republican front-runner for governor, is suing the state in an effort to prevent his personal wealth from helping his primary rival, Attorney General Bill McCollum.Given the way the Supreme Court recently ruled on the corporate campaign finance laws I think Scott could have a good case. My view has always been that there shouldn't be any campaign finance laws because political contributions, whether to yourself or another, constitute political speech, and according to the First Amendment the right to that speech is pretty much inviolable.
Scott filed suit in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee Wednesday challenging part of Florida's public campaign financing system known as the "millionaire's amendment."
The provision lets traditional candidates such as McCollum get tax dollars to subsidize their campaigns when they are being vastly outspent by independently wealthy candidates like Scott.
Scott must agree to limit his campaign expenditures to $24.9-million in the primary or else the state will give McCollum $1 for every dollar Scott spends over the cap. As Scott inches ever closer to that total, his lawsuit argues that the cap is a violation of his First Amendment rights because it restricts his free speech by benefiting his opponents' speech.
"The (U.S.) Supreme Court has concluded that a Legislature cannot enact laws that provide benefits to a candidate's opponents triggered by the candidate's exercise of the right to use funds for campaign speech," the suit says.
The only campaign finance law that makes sense is full disclosure. Let everybody spend as much as they want as long as every dollar is disclosed.
The left gets apoplexy over the idea that a rich person can spend more than someone else, but that's how the free market works and I don't think there should be restrictions on a person's speech just because he has more money.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment