A bit of a surprise, actually, but for anyone who loathes wealthy dilletantes buying elections, it is certainly a most welcome surprise:
Saying there was a greater public interest in preventing corruption than protecting Rick Scott's First Amendment rights, federal district court Judge Robert Hinkle on Tuesday threw out the insurgent Republican's request for an injunction of Florida's public campaign finance law.
His ruling upholds the provision that requires the state to cut McCollum a check for every dollar Scott spends over the $24.9 million limit the law imposes on candidates who don't opt into the public finance system.
Recent court precedents, as DavidNYC from Swing State Project noted last week, seemed to lean in the wealthy hospital magnate's direction. Uber-wealthy New York Democratic Congressional candidate Jack Davis successfully fought the federal variation of this law a few years back, for example. Federal Court judge Robert Hinkle, however, argued that this case is different from other precedents because the self-funding cap was passed in concert with other campaign finance reports.
There is something incredibly galling about Rick Scott's molestation of the 1st Amendment here. His argument, simplified, is as follows: "I have a free-speech right to outspend my political opponents by an exponential factor, and the state giving financial assistance to my opponents in order to create even something approaching parity is a burden on my Constitutional rights."
Given how the court has ruled in the recent past, there is certainly the chance that Scott will be more successful when he heads to the 11th Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be a shame, however, if he is successful. It is mournful that the reigning interpretation of the Bill of Rights could well be construed as defending the right of billionaires to buy elections, coupled with the state being precluded from offering any remedies to level the playing field.