CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/7/2023 1

Public Campaign Funds 

Triggered by an Opponent’s Expenditures 

Scott v. Roberts (Robert L. Hinkle, N.D. Fla. 4:10-cv-283) 

A self-funded gubernatorial candidate filed a federal complaint challenging public matching campaign funds for an opponent triggered 

by the plaintiff’s spending above a specified threshold. The district 

court determined that the provision combatted corruption by promoting public campaign financing, but the court of appeals issued a 

preliminary injunction against the provision because it was not the 

least restrictive way to combat corruption. After the Supreme Court 

invalidated a similar provision in another state, the district judge issued a permanent injunction against the provision. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign finance; 

intervention; primary election. 

Rick Scott, a self-funded primary-election candidate for governor, filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Florida on July 7, 2010, against Florida’s secretary of state challenging the Florida Election Campaign Financing 

Act’s provision of matching public funding for an opposing candidate’s campaign once a candidate’s expenditures reached $2 per registered voter, or 

$24,901,170, which was also the expenditure limit for a candidate who opted 

into public campaign subsidies.1 With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

On July 9, Judge Robert L. Hinkle set a telephonic status conference for 

July 123

 and ordered service on Florida’s attorney general.4 On the day of the 

conference, Judge Hinkle allowed Bill McCollum, the attorney general, to intervene as a defendant on his own behalf, because he was the opposing candidate who benefitted from the challenged statute.5

 Judge Hinkle set the case for 

hearing on July 14.6

In its 2008 case Davis v. FEC, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal 

“Millionaire Amendment,” which increased contribution limits for candidates 

opposing candidates who spent large amounts of their own wealth on a campaign.7

 On July 14, 2010, Judge Hinkle denied Scott a preliminary injunction, 

1. Complaint, Scott v. Roberts, No. 4:10-cv-283 (N.D. Fla. July 7, 2010), D.E. 1; Scott v. 

Roberts, 612 F.3d 1279, 1281, 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2010); Transcript at 86, Scott, No. 4:10-cv283 (N.D. Fla. July 14, 2010, filed July 15, 2010), D.E. 28 [hereinafter Scott Hearing Transcript]. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Scott, No. 4:10-cv-283 (N.D. Fla. July 7, 2010), D.E. 3;

Scott, 612 F.3d at 1287. 

3. Order, Scott, No. 4:10-cv-283 (N.D. Fla. July 9, 2010), D.E. 8. 

4. Order, id. (July 9, 2010), D.E. 10. 

5. Intervention Order, id. (July 12, 2010), D.E. 18; see Intervention Motion, id. (July 12, 

2010), D.E. 13. 

6. Transcript at 9, 16–17, id. (July 12, 2010, filed July 16, 2010), D.E. 32; Minutes, id. (July 

12, 2010), D.E. 14; see Scott, 612 F.3d at 1281. 

7. 554 U.S. 724 (2008); see Daniel P. Tokaji, Election Law in a Nutshell 308 (2013). 
Public Campaign Funds Triggered by an Opponent’s Expenditures 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/7/2023 

concluding, “Promoting participation in public financing, and, thus, decreasing potential corruption at least indirectly through public financing, was not 

involved in Davis.”8

On July 30, the court of appeals reversed Judge Hinkle’s ruling and issued 

its own preliminary injunction against the matching funds that would be triggered by Scott’s expenditures.9

 “The parties have not sufficiently explained 

how the Florida public financing system furthers the anticorruption interest.”10 The court of appeals concluded that the provision was not the least restrictive way to curtail corruption.11

On December 1, following Scott’s November election as governor, Judge 

Hinkle granted McCollum’s motion to withdraw from the case.12 Judge Hinkle 

denied the remaining parties’ joint motion for a permanent injunction, noting 

that the court of appeals had only decided the case on a preliminary-injunction 

standard and the plaintiff was about to become the defendant’s boss.13 On June 

28, 2011, however, Judge Hinkle did issue a permanent injunction in the plaintiff’s favor in line with the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision in Arizona Free 

Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett invalidating a similar matching-funds program in Arizona.14

8. Scott Hearing Transcript, supra note 1, at 93; Order, Scott, No. 4:10-cv-283 (N.D. Fla. 

July 14, 2010), D.E. 27; Minutes, id. (July 14, 2010), D.E. 25; Scott, 612 F.3d at 1289; see Mary 

Ellen Klas, Bill McCollum Wins Round Over Matching Campaign Funds, Miami Herald, July 

15, 2010, at 1A. 

9. Scott, 612 F.3d at 1281–82; see Mary Ellen Klas, Court Deals Blow to Public Money Match 

for Bill McCollum Campaign, Miami Herald, July 31, 2010, at 1A. 

10. Scott, 612 F.3d at 1292. 

11. Id. at 1281, 1290, 1294. 

12. Order, Scott, No. 4:10-cv-283 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2010), D.E. 39. 

13. Id.

14. Order, id. (June 28, 2011), D.E. 43; see Ariz. Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC 

v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011).