Will Florida’s campaign finance disclosure and disclaimer requirments for PACs be heard by SCOTUS?

Two-time losers, the four petitioners in Worley v. Florida Secretary of State have filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their appeal of an unanimous decision handed down by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last summer.

Here’s hoping the high court will hear the case, and reaffirm, once again, the ability of the state of Florida to enforce its campaign finance disclosure and disclaimer statutes.

(Full Disclosure: I served as the State of Florida’s expert defending the Florida Secretary of State and Florida’s disclosure laws for Political Action Committees.)

SCOTUS Refuses to Review NOM’s Challenge to Maine’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Law


I didn’t have a chance to blog SCOTUS’s decision not to grant cert. in the case, NOM v. McKee, which grew out of a an investigation launched by the Maine Ethics Commission in 2009 after the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) failed to disclose its donors in its effort to defeat Question 1, which overturned marriage equality in the state.

Here’s a link to a series of discussions about the case by Rick Hasen on his ElectionLaw blog.

Back in the spring of 2010, I provided some pro-bono assistance to attorneys in the Maine Attorney General, drawing on my work on campaign finance disclosure in similar lawsuits in California, Colorado, and Florida, and my Election Law Journal article with Beth Garrett, Veiled Political Actors.



Jeb Bush champions full campaign finance disclsoure

Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, testifying before a House Budget Committee panel a couple days ago, championed the full transparency of all campaign donors.

Republic Report has the video:

BUSH: In a perfect world, we could have a different financing system. I love the idea of having campaigns be funded directly, rather than indirectly. And have no limits and total transparency so if people were offended by a large donor, the candidate, he or she, would have to accept responsibility for the message and the for the amount of money and who gave it. That would be, for me, talking about markets, rather than government control kind of response, that would be a better approach. […] I would suggest Congress should show more self-restraint about allowing that influence to change policy if that’s the view.