Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RICHARD L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv283-RH/WCS

DAWN K. ROBERTS, etc.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

In 1991, Florida adopted an optional system for public funding of statewide

campaigns. The state simultaneously imposed a $500 limit on campaign

contributions. A goal was to eliminate the corruption or appearance of corruption

that can result from greater campaign contributions. Doing this was constitutional. 

No party to this lawsuit has contended otherwise.

A candidate who chooses to participate in the public-funding system agrees

to caps on overall spending and on spending of the candidate’s own personal

funds. A candidate who chooses not to participate in the public-funding system

faces no caps on overall or personal spending. Again, adopting these provisions

Case 4:10-cv-00283-RH-WCS Document 27 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

Case No: 4:10cv283-RH/WCS

was constitutional. No party to this lawsuit has contended otherwise.

But the public-funding system includes an additional feature that is at the

center of this lawsuit. If a nonparticipating candidate spends funds in excess of the

cap applicable to a participating opponent, the opponent receives additional public

funds matching the amount of the excess, up to a new limit. 

The plaintiff Richard L. Scott is a candidate for Governor in the Republican

primary election that will occur on August 24, 2010. He challenges the matchingfunds provision as a violation of the First Amendment. He has moved for a

preliminary injunction.

After full briefing and oral argument, I denied the motion, setting out the

reasons at substantial length on the record. Mr. Scott is likely to appeal. The

issues are close. In order to preserve Mr. Scott’s right to appeal at a meaningful

time, this order briefly summarizes the basis for the ruling, without the delay that

would attend the preparation of a full opinion.

I

Mr. Scott chose not to participate in the public-funding system. One of his

opponents for the Republican nomination for Governor, William L. “Bill”

McCollum, chose to participate. The spending cap applicable to Mr. McCollum is

roughly $24.9 million. Mr. Scott’s spending will soon pass that amount, entitling

Mr. McCollum to matching funds, unless implementation of the statute is enjoined.

Case 4:10-cv-00283-RH-WCS Document 27 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

Case No: 4:10cv283-RH/WCS

II

As both sides agree, issuance of a preliminary injunction is governed by a

familiar four-part test. The proponent must establish (1) a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits; (2) that the proponent will suffer irreparable injury unless

the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the

proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction

would not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., McDonald’s Corp. v.

Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536

(11th Cir. 1983). 

III

The merits are close. Compare Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, Nos.

09-0599cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON), 2010 WL 2737134 (2d Cir. July 13, 2010)

(striking down a match provision similar to Florida’s) with McComish v. Bennett,

— F.3d —, 2010 WL 2595288 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010) (upholding a match

provision similar to Florida’s), mandate stayed, — S. Ct. —, 2010 WL 2265319

(June 8, 2010). Neither Green Party nor McComish is binding in this court, and

neither has the analysis quite right. As set out on the record, I conclude that Mr.

Scott is not likely to prevail on the merits.

Case 4:10-cv-00283-RH-WCS Document 27 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

Case No: 4:10cv283-RH/WCS

IV

Mr. Scott, if he were right on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm. So

would Mr. McCollum, if he were wrongly enjoined. Similarly, the balance of

equities favors the party who is right on the merits. There are other equitable

considerations, but they would not affect the decision to grant or deny the

preliminary injunction in accord with the likelihood of success on the merits. The

same is true of the public interest. Had I concluded Mr. Scott was likely to prevail

on the merits, I would have granted the preliminary injunction.

V

Because Mr. Scott has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the

merits,

IT IS ORDERED:

Mr. Scott’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on July 14, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00283-RH-WCS Document 27 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 4