It got little attention, but a recent legal decision could be a game changer in Florida politics.
The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, ended a legal fight over a state law that requires the public to know who is behind — and who is bankrolling — television and radio ads and direct-mail fliers that sharply attack or praise politicians.
Browning decided not to appeal a federal court’s ruling in May that declared the state’s regulation of these outside groups was unconstitutional.
Florida’s decision not to appeal the case signaled to some that the state has given up the fight to try to control money-driven politics.
“It’s horrible,” said State Sen. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat running for attorney general. “The transparency was a Band-Aid on a huge problem. Now that Band-Aid has been ripped off. This has the potential to be a disruptive and disreputable cycle.” More here.
The reason that the decision could be a game changer is because while the state plans to no longer regulate state level 527's, known as electioneering communication organizations, there is nothing in law that prevents these groups from coordinating their messages - which could be thinly veiled attacks on candidates - with campaigns.
That's because of this Division of Elections ruling from 2005. So in other words, allies of Bill McCollum or Alex Sink could raise large amounts of money (ECOs were never bound by any contribution limits even before the ruling) and use them on ads that mention their rival as long as the magic words "vote for" or "vote against" are never used.
It is worth noting that Judge Stephan Mickle found that the state law that required ECOs to register with the state and report their donations constituted prior restraint of the groups First Amendment rights and presented an unreasonable burden for political speech.
But there's no question this changes the landscape heading into the 2010 elections unless state lawmakers attempt to regulate these groups again. However that effort could be largely dependent on what the U.S. Supreme Court does. The court made the unusual decision last week to order a new round of oral arguments in a closely-watched campaign finance case. Some groups, such as the one that sued over Florida's law, contend that is a signal that the court will strike down the ban on electioneering groups that now exists under federal law.
Comments