Florida’s race for governor highlights flaws

This year’s race for governor in Florida is on pace for an all-time record in spending, thanks in part to six- and seven-figure contributions from out-of-state moguls, the state’s most powerful corporations, business lobbies and three candidates themselves — a billionaire and two millionaires.

Is this really the best way to choose Florida’s top public servant?

Florida law limits contributions to political candidates in statewide races to $3,000, but there are no caps on giving to political committees that cover advertising and other expenses. A Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald analysis of the biggest sources of campaign cash for this year’s candidates for governor and their political committees through May included the following details:

Republican Adam Putnam, state agriculture commissioner, was the most successful fundraiser in the race so far, with $30 million total. His campaign and its affiliated political committee received $4.4 million from political action committees affiliated with Associated Industries of Florida, a business lobbying group, and $1.9 million from PACs associated with the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Putnam raked in $834,000 from Disney, nearly $600,000 from Florida Power & Light Co. and $560,000 from U.S. Sugar. Those three corporations also help bankroll AIF and the Florida Chamber, so their footprint on Putnam’s campaign is bigger than their direct contributions would suggest. Even if contributions of this magnitude don’t dictate policy decisions, they pave the way for a level of access and influence that other groups and ordinary citizens can only imagine.

Democrat Philip Levine, former mayor of Miami Beach and a multimillionaire businessman, plowed almost $9.3 million of his own fortune into his campaign. His money helped bankroll an early TV ad campaign that pushed him to the top of the Democratic race in some polls. He and his campaign committee also collected several six-figure contributions from other tycoons, including a Ukrainian oligarch who is now a U.S. citizen.

Democrat Andrew Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, is a man of modest means, but his contributions were topped by $500,000 from liberal billionaire and political activist George Soros and his son, and $266,000 from a super PAC whose contributors include Soros. The same super PAC has spent almost $750,000 on ads attacking one of his primary rivals, former Congresswoman Gwen Graham, and reportedly will spend another $750,000 on ads promoting Gillum.

Through May, donors had already invested $80 million into candidates for governor in Florida, and the Times/Herald predicted the race would break the record of $150 million spent in the race between Scott and former Gov. Charlie Crist in 2014.

Democrat Jeff Greene, a Palm Beach billionaire, didn’t show up in the campaign finance reports reviewed by the Times/Herald, because he didn’t officially enter the race until June. But Greene, who made a killing by correctly betting that the real-estate market would crash in the Great Recession, has vowed to “spend what it takes” to get elected. He could eclipse the $73 million record for selffinancing set by Scott in 2010.

Florida voters tried to create an alternative to campaigns dominated by special interests and big-money contributors, and level the playing field for candidates who aren’t millionaires or billionaires, by approving a public-financing system for gubernatorial and Cabinet races 20 years ago. That system offers candidates matching public funds for individual contributions from state residents up to $250, provided those candidates agree to cap their overall spending.

But legislators undermined the system in 2005 by more than tripling the spending limit for statewide races. The cap for candidates for governor is now $27 million. Candidates can exceed that limit and still qualify for matching funds if the excess spending is done by their political committees instead of their campaigns. Some candidates, including Putnam, have further corroded the credibility of the system in previous campaign cycles by taking matching funds even when they were already light years ahead of their competitors on fundraising.

The flaws and abuses in Florida’s public-financing system have spurred calls for its elimination. But that would leave no alternative to the current campaign landscape that favors candidates who are rich or bankrolled by special interests, or both. A smarter approach is to reform the public-financing system, not reject it.

It’s too late for the 2018 races, but legislators could get a running start next year on the next cycle of statewide races. They could begin by counting expenditures from candidates’ political committees against the overall campaign spending limit. They could rule out matching funds for candidates whose campaign war chests dwarf their competitors’. And they could come up with more improvements by studying the best practices in the other 13 states with public financing systems.

Florida deserves better than a system rigged for special interests and rich candidates.