ALFRED A. "MIKE" MCNAMEE AND STEVE PINCKET, APPELLANTS,
v.
JIM SMITH, SECRETARY OF STATE, AND DOROTHY JOYCE, DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of constitutional challenge to campaign finance filing fees and party assessments, holding that such provisions do not violate freedom of speech or association under Buckley v. Valeo.
Filing fees and assessments required by Florida election law that fund campaign financing and state political parties do not violate freedom of speech or association.
[1] Filing fees and assessments required to fund campaign financing trust funds and state political parties do not violate freedom of speech or association under Buckley v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo candidates for public office challenged the constitutionality of Florida's filing fee, election assessment, and party assessment scheme that requi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Campaign Finance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants * seek review of a final judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment against them. On appeal, appellants challenge the constitutionality of the filing fee, election assessment and party assessment scheme found in sections 99.061(1), 99.092 and 99.103, Florida Statutes. They contend that these provisions of Chapter 99, Florida Statutes, requiring a portion of the filing fee to be disbursed to the election campaign financing trust fund and part to be given to the state political party, are unconstitutional infringements on their freedom of speech and association. We reject these challenge for the reasons articulated in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), and Little v. Florida, Department of State, 19 F. 3d 4 (11th Cir.1994). Our review is of course limited to the legality of the statutes; the wisdom of the challenged scheme is exclusively within the province of the legislature.
AFFIRMED.
MINER, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. *
Both appellants were candidates for public office. Appellant McNamee was a candidate for State Attorney and Appellant Pincket ran as a Democratic candidate for the Florida Senate. Neither appellant was elected.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Mortham, 155 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1998)…t in 1996 is reasonable. Boudreau v. Winchester, 642 So. 2d 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (upholding total seven and a half percent qualifying fee against challenge to its partial disbursement to candidate’s party and to trust fund); McNamee v. Smith, 647 So. 2d 162 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (same). Turning to the petition alternative, the Supreme Court has upheld petition requirements more onerous than the three percent requirement at issue here. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 438-39, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Little v. Fla. Dep't OF State, 19 F.3d 4 (11th Cir. 1994)