With unlimited money flooding elections at every level, St. Petersburg is considering taking a bold stand. A proposed ordinance would limit spending in city elections by super PACs and prohibit involvement of foreign entities. But the move carries substantial risk — chiefly, the city could get tied up in expensive lawsuits — and City Council members should proceed cautiously to ensure that taxpayers are protected. While the intensions are honorable, St. Petersburg cannot afford to spend a taxpayer nickel on a court fight over campaign finance reform.
A pair of court rulings got us here. First is the better-known Citizens United vs. FEC. The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2010 lifted a decades-old ban on corporations and labor unions directly spending money to support or oppose federal candidates. A second case, decided by the federal appeals court in Washington, SpeechNow.org vs. FEC, relies on the precedent set in Citizens United. That lower court ruling said limits on contributions to outside groups, such as the now-infamous super political action committees, are unconstitutional, which means corporations and wealthy individuals can spend as much as they want to influence elections, primarily through advertising. As a result of the two cases, super PAC money has grown by the tens of millions every election cycle since.
City Council member Darden Rice, a former head of the League of Women Voters and good-government advocate, has made this a local issue. She says it's only a matter of time before super PAC and foreign money infiltrates St. Petersburg elections. As an example of foreign money's influence at the local level, she points to Austin, Texas, where the rideshare company Uber spent millions on a local referendum to try to defeat a city ordinance governing background checks on drivers. Uber has billions in investments from Saudi Arabia. Super PAC money is already beginning to show up in Tampa Bay elections. In the Pinellas County District 5 School Board race, a super PAC based in Palm Beach County paid for campaign mailers to promote incumbent Carol Cook without Cook's knowledge or consent.
St. Petersburg's proposed ordinance would require corporations that spend more than $5,000 in city elections to certify that they are not wholly or partly owned by foreign shareholders above certain thresholds. This is in keeping with current federal law that prohibits noncitizens from participating in U.S. elections. The second provision would limit individual contributions to super PACs that spend money in city elections to $5,000. That could effectively ban super PACs from city elections, since by definition their donors are allowed to make unlimited contributions.
Those intriguing efforts would help ensure the integrity of St. Petersburg's elections. But they also conflict with prevailing court opinions and would likely trigger a lawsuit. Rice, who has enlisted the help of national legal experts and free speech groups, acknowledges that the ordinance is part of a strategy to contest the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions with the hope of ultimately overturning them. It's an admirable pursuit — the two court opinions are damaging to democracy — but it must not be waged at the expense of St. Petersburg taxpayers. The Texas-based nonprofit group Free Speech for People has promised to litigate the case for free. A foundation called I Stand With St. Pete is being established to promote the cause and seek crowd-funded donations to help with legal costs. Or the city could purchase an insurance policy (using those donations to pay the premium) to protect it from having to pay opponents' legal bills should the city lose in court. Until those details are worked out, this issue should be on hold at City Hall.
Unlimited outside money influencing elections harms democracy. The country would be better off if these court decisions are overturned. A local ordinance challenging this bad precedent is bold, but it's not yet clear it is prudent.
