Advisory Opinion to the Atty.Gen. re: Prohibiting Public Funding of Political Candidates' Campaigns, 89667

• Decision Date: 15 May 1997
• Docket Number: No. 89667,89667
• Citation: 693 So.2d 972
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly S267 ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: PROHIBITING PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES' CAMPAIGNS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 972

693 So.2d 972

22 Fla. L. Weekly S267

ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: PROHIBITING PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES' CAMPAIGNS.

No. 89667.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 15, 1997.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Louis F. Hubener, III, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Presentor.

Kenneth W. Sukhia of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tallahassee, on behalf of Citizens for Campaign & Government Spending Reform, Interested Party, Proponent.

Parker D. Thomson, Carol A. Licko and R. Amy Blum of Thomson, Muraro, Razook & Hart, Miami, for Common Cause/Florida; and Mark Herron and Christopher R. Haughee of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Tallahassee, for Floridians to Preserve Campaign Spending Limits, Interested Parties, Opponents.

OVERTON, Justice.

The Attorney General has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion on the validity of an initiative petition seeking to amend the Florida Constitution to prohibit the public funding of the political campaigns of candidates for the offices of Governor, Cabinet offices, the Florida Senate, and the Florida House of Representatives. We have jurisdiction. Art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.

In response to the Attorney General's request, we issued an order permitting interested parties to file briefs and heard oral arguments on the validity of the proposed amendment. For the reasons expressed, we find that the amendment does not violate the single subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution, and that the proposed ballot title and summary are not misleading. Consequently, we approve the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot. The ballot title of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

PROHIBITING PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES' CAMPAIGNS

The ballot summary of the proposed amendment provides:

Prohibits the payment of State funds to political candidates' campaigns for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Cabinet offices, Florida Senate or Florida House of Representatives. The amendment will be effective upon passage. Upon passage, any funds remaining in public campaign financing accounts will be used to satisfy existing obligations, then treated as general revenue for the State.

The full text of the initiative petition provides:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:

1) Amendment of Article VI, Florida Constitution:

Article VI, Florida Constitution, is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

Section 7. No Public Funding of Election Campaigns:

(a) Public funds shall not be used for the financing of campaigns for elective State office.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) The phrase "public funds" means funds from the State, including appropriated funds, trust funds, the Budget Stabilization Fund, or similar fiscal mechanisms of the State.

(2) The term "financing" means the payment of funds to campaigns, and does not include the use of funds for the administration or conduct of elections generally, or the reimbursement of funds or property erroneously paid to or taken by the State.

(3) The term "campaigns" means the activity of an individual as a candidate for election or of a candidate's campaign committee or organization.

(4) The phrase "elective State office" means the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Cabinet offices, Florida Senate and Florida House of Representatives.

2) Effective Date and Transition:

This amendment shall be effective on the date it is approved by the electorate. Funds remaining in trust funds or otherwise dedicated to uses abrogated under this amendment on such date shall be used first to satisfy any existing obligation under public campaign financing laws, and then deposited into the general revenue fund.

3) Severability:

If any portion of this measure is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion of this measure, to the fullest extent possible, shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and application.

This Court's responsibility in analyzing the proposed amendment is limited to two legal issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment meets the single subject requirements of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the proposed amendment's title and summary are "printed in clear and unambiguous language." § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). As we have previously expressed, we have no authority to rule on the merits of a proposed amendment. Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla.1994).

SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT

Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, provides in pertinent part:

The power to propose the revision or amendment of any portion or portions of this constitution by initiative is reserved to the people, provided that, any such revision or amendment, except for those limiting the power of government to raise revenue, shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith.

As we have fully explained previously, the single subject rule serves as a "rule of restraint." Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla.1984). "It was placed in the constitution by the people to allow the citizens, by initiative petition, to propose and vote on singular changes in the functions of our governmental structure." Id. The test for evaluating whether a proposed amendment violates the single subject rule requires us to determine whether the amendment deals with "a logical and natural oneness of purpose." Id. at 990.

Opponents to this proposed amendment contend that it logrolls classes of public offices into one initiative. Specifically, they claim that the amendment enumerates four offices for which public funding would be prohibited if the amendment passes, and they argue that a voter is being asked to answer four different questions. Consequently, they contend that the amendment requires the voter to cast an all-or-nothing vote on four different classifications.

We reject this contention and find that the...