Do you know about the 2024 Florida Amendments?
Florida voters will be faced with six constitutional amendment proposals on the Nov. 5 ballot. Each needs at least 60% of votes to be enshrined in the Florida Constitution.
Are you still unsure about what each amendment means and whether you’re going to cast a “yes” or “no” vote? In this story, we highlight each of the six Florida Amendments on the 2024 ballot to help you prepare for Election Day, which is from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024.
If you want to vote on the candidates and the six Florida Amendments ahead of time, early voting runs through Sunday, Nov. 3, with times and days varying by county.
Early voting: Here’s when it starts in Florida, including time, date and by county
Election Day 2024 is coming up. If you’re still unsure about what the six Florida Amendments mean — from the “make school board races partisan” to “cleaner elections” amendment — means and whether you’re going to cast a “yes” or “no” vote, we’ll break it down for you.
In this story, we’re highlighting each of the amendments, and we’re offering the recommendations (when available) of the editorial boards of two Florida newspapers in the USA TODAY NETWORK and four other newspapers in the Sunshine State. Though Florida is home to almost two dozen newspapers, with 16 sites that are part of the USA TODAY Network, a small fraction of newspapers provide editorial board recommendations during U.S. general elections. However, each newspaper has covered the Florida amendments in the 2024 election with stories that explain what it means to their readers. Below is a list of newspapers here with links to their sites if you want to do further research on the 2024 Florida amendments.
How many newspapers are in Florida?
Below is a list of Florida newspapers:
-
Daytona Beach News-Journal, news-journalonline.com
-
Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville, jacksonville.com
-
FLORIDA TODAY, which covers the Space Coast, floridatoday.com
-
Gainesville Sun, gainesville.com
-
Lakeland Ledger, theledger.com
-
(Fort Myers) News-Press, news-press.com
-
Miami Herald, miamiherald.com
-
Naples Daily News, naplesnews.com
-
Northwest Florida Daily News, nwfdailynews.com
-
Ocala Star-Banner, ocala.com
-
Orlando Sentinel, orlandosentinel.com
-
Palm Beach Daily News, palmbeachdailynews.com
-
Palm Beach Post, palmbeachpost.com
-
Panama City News-Herald, newsherald.com
-
Pensacola News Journal, pnj.com
-
St. Augustine Record, staugustine.com
-
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, sun-sentinel.com
-
Tallahassee Democrat, tallahassee.com
-
Tampa Bay Times/Tampa Tribune, tampabay.com
-
TCPalm or Treasure Coast Newspapers, which covers Martin County, St. Lucie County and Indian River County, tcpalm.com
Which Florida newspapers offer editorial board recommendations or Florida amendment endorsements?
For the 2024 general election, the editorial boards of six Florida newspapers offered recommendations — endorsements on how to vote — on the six Florida amendments on the ballot.
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Summary: Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election and to specify that the amendment only applies to elections held on or after the November 2026 general election. However, partisan primary elections may occur before the 2026 general election for purposes of nominating political party candidates to that office for placement on the 2026 general election ballot.
Florida Amendment 1: Vote yes or no on Florida Amendments? What Amendment 1 means, partisan school board elections
TCPalm, also known as Treasure Coast newspapers, is part of the USA TODAY Network, covering Indian River County, Martin County and St. Lucie County in Florida.
TCPalm: NO
The TCPalm Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 1.
Why: “School board elections should be grassroots affairs, with the needs of parents, teachers, school administrators, taxpayers and, most importantly, students taking priority. We don’t need one more type of election overrun with dark money spending, attack ads and agendas that have little to do with what’s best for our children. Partisan school board elections would become even more nasty and divisive, pitting neighbors against one another. It was bad enough this year.”
The Palm Beach Post is part of the USA TODAY Network.
The Palm Beach Post: NO
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 1.
Why: “Florida’s public schools have enough challenges. Whether it’s aging infrastructure, declining enrollment, underpaid staff or undue state interference, the pressure on local school board members is intense and is growing. Political hacks hostile to public education need not apply. By requiring candidates to disclose their party affiliations, the amendment opens the process in a way that would reduce the influence of the voter and the local community. Partisan politics, including campaign contributions from corporations and political action committees that may be more interested in contracts and educational policies, fly in the face of what most parents, students and educators see as necessary for quality schools.”
Tampa Bay Times: NO
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 1.
Why: “Few things have torn Florida apart in recent years as the politicization of local schools. But the warfare over book bans, gender identity and lessons about race would go into overdrive if Floridians approved this measure to make school board races partisan elections. School board elections in Florida are currently nonpartisan. That means all registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, have a say in who controls their local schools.”
Miami Herald: NO
The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 1.
Why: “Florida and the country need less partisan divide — not more of it — especially when it comes to public education. That’s why Florida voters should reject constitutional Amendment 1 in the General Election. The proposal, placed on the Nov. 5 ballot by the Republican-led Legislature, would ‘require members of a district school board to be elected in a partisan election rather than a nonpartisan election,’ as they are now. If at least 60% of voters approve Amendment 1, candidates will have to run as Democrats or Republicans starting in 2026 and parties will nominate their own candidates for these elections. As the U.S. becomes more polarized, so have nonpartisan school boards.”
Florida Amendment 1: Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board recommendation
Orlando Sentinel: NO
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 1.
Why: “Amendment 1 would shut voters out of school board races. It always seems strange when lawmakers turn to voters and ask ‘Are you sure?’ about something they settled a quarter-century ago. Amendment 1 would turn back the clock and make all school board elections partisan, reversing a decision by voters in 1998, when they voted to make school board elections nonpartisan.”
South Florida Sun Sentinel: NO
The South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 1.
Why: “Save our schools: Floridians voted to make school board elections nonpartisan in 1998. Going back to the bad old days would disenfranchise millions of voters, make school board races more expensive, increase the power of special interests and further polarize our politics.”
2024 Florida Amendments: Amendment 2, right to fish and hunt amendment
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Section of Article IV of the State Constitution.
Digging deeper into Amendment 2: Pros and cons of Florida hunting and fishing ballot initiative
TCPalm, also known as Treasure Coast newspapers, is part of the USA TODAY Network, covering Indian River County, Martin County and St. Lucie County in Florida.
TCPalm: NO
The TCPalm Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 2.
Why: “It’s been almost 190 years since Florida created its constitution. For the reasons above, we see no reason to change the constitution for something that has never been a source of controversy.”
Florida Amendment 2: Vote yes or no on Florida Amendments? What Amendment 2 means, forever fishing and hunting
The Palm Beach Post is part of the USA TODAY Network.
The Palm Beach Post: NO
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 2.
Why: “If there were ever a right that doesn’t belong enshrined in the Florida Constitution, it’s this one. By law, Floridians already enjoy hunting and fishing privileges. The amendment’s constitutional promise comes with big problems that should alarm anyone who appreciates the state’s wildlife and natural habitats. These three strikes alone warrant rejection. … Amendment 2 would prohibit any bans on hunting and fishing, even when appropriate to preserve a threatened species. It establishes ‘traditional’ methods of hunting and fishing ‘… as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.’ Therein lies the rub. Hunting and fishing aren’t the only ways to manage and control fish and wildlife. Conservation and land preservation work, too. But, those efforts will take a back seat to the ‘traditional means,’ whatever that means.”
Tampa Bay Times: NO
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 2.
Why: “This is a ridiculous amendment that doesn’t belong in the state constitution, whether you are an outdoors enthusiast or not. Let’s first state the obvious: Florida is a great place to fish and hunt. The lifestyle and recreation of enjoying Florida’s natural resources has flourished since the state’s very existence. Hunting and fishing are multibillion dollar industries that add to Florida’s character, support tens of thousands of jobs and underpin entire communities. Visitors come to Florida for the great outdoors, and its wild lands and waterways are major reasons why people vacation here, relocate (here), open businesses here and remain here. Hunting and fishing are among the most thriving pursuits in Florida. They are not under threat. But they could be if Floridians pass this amendment.”
Miami Herald: NO
The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 2.
Why: “The measure on the Nov. 5 general election ballot preserves the right to forever fishing and hunting including by the use of traditional methods as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. Florida law already protects those rights, but proponents say a constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent efforts to ban or curtail them. However, there are no credible proposals to stop Floridians from hunting or fishing. Even if there were, it’s virtually impossible that the conservative Legislature or state regulators would go along. That’s part of the reason Amendment 2 is misleading. Another reason is that if approved by at least 60% of voters, the amendment could be used to challenge even the most common sense regulations on hunting and fishing, even though the ballot language states that it does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the main regulatory agency for such activities.”
Orlando Sentinel: NO
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 2.
Why: “Amendment 2 could wreak havoc with Florida’s habitat and wildlife: The Sentinel endorses a ‘no’ vote on the Florida constitutional amendment about hunting and fishing, whose convoluted wording gives the state too much power.”
South Florida Sun Sentinel: NO
The South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 2.
Why: “Keep hunting and fishing out of the Constitution: Amendment 2 does far more than simply preserve a right to fish and hunt, which is already in state law. The amendment’s extremely negative consequences for wildlife management and ethical hunting practices should have even ardent sportsmen voting a resounding ‘no.’”
Sponsor: Smart & Safe Florida
Summary: Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise; allows Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers, and other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories. Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law. Establishes possession limits for personal use. Allows consistent legislation. Defines terms. Provides effective date.
Florida Amendment 3 Vote yes or no on Florida Amendments? What Amendment 3, recreational marijuana proposal, means
TCPalm, also known as Treasure Coast newspapers, is part of the USA TODAY Network, covering Indian River County, Martin County and St. Lucie County in Florida.
TCPalm: NO RECOMMENDATION
The TCPalm Editorial Board has no recommendation on how to vote on Amendment 3.
Why: “Whether this should be a right guaranteed in the constitution or a statute passed by the Legislature is a matter of debate. Even more complex of an issue is whether making recreational marijuana legal would benefit our state as a whole. Given our focus on more local issues, we’ve decided not to spend a lot of time researching the intricacies of this one. We offer no recommendation.”
The Palm Beach Post is part of the USA TODAY Network.
The Palm Beach Post: YES
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 3.
Why: “Legalize pot and deal with its ills: This is not an easy call, but Amendment 3 would be a start for the state to finally address the ongoing health and legal issues surrounding cannabis. Despite the psychological concerns and punitive laws against it, weed has long enjoyed widespread use. The Post recommends voters face this reality, with a ‘yes’ on Amendment 3. insist that state lawmakers and health officials implement a more credible approach to the problems associated with weed. The typical tough-on-crime mantra has only made matters worse, when it comes to cannabis. No matter the referendum’s outcome, there are concerns that must be addressed and it’s up to our state leaders to do it.”
Tampa Bay Times: YES
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 3.
Why: “The way Florida handles low-level marijuana possession is ineffective, destructive, racially biased and detached from modern sentiment. It’s a good thing voters have a chance to rectify all that in the Nov. 5 election. Legalizing adult-use recreational marijuana can’t get here soon enough. Our justice system snares too many otherwise law-abiding people for simply possessing a substance that in many ways is less dangerous than alcohol.”
Miami Herald: YES
The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 3.
Why: “For more than half a century, America has been fighting a war on drugs that most people agree has failed. It focused too often on street arrests of young people of color who spent years in prison for small amounts of marijuana while violent cartels bringing in opioids, cocaine and fentanyl — among the most dangerous drugs — continued doing business. Now Floridians have a chance to help police direct their resources to where they will matter more — to combat killer drugs — and allow the legal use of marijuana products for adults 21 and older.”
The editorial boards of the Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel combined their recommendations for most of the 2024 Florida Amendments. Below is what both newspapers’ editorial boards have to say about Amendment 3, the recreational marijuana amendment.
Orlando Sentinel: YES
South Florida Sun Sentinel: YES
The Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards recommend a Yes vote on Amendment 3.
Why: “Allowing personal use of marijuana makes sense for Florida: The good outweighs the bad in Amendment 3, the proposed recreational marijuana constitutional amendment. People shouldn’t be arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and there are good reasons, in terms of both economics and public safety, for marijuana to be carefully regulated.”
2024 Florida Amendments: Amendment 4, amendment to limit government interference with abortion or ‘abortion amendment’
Sponsor: Floridians Protecting Freedom Inc.
Summary: No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.
Florida Amendment 4 in simple terms. What are Florida’s abortion laws?
TCPalm, also known as Treasure Coast newspapers, is part of the USA TODAY Network, covering Indian River County, Martin County and St. Lucie County in Florida.
TCPalm: NO RECOMMENDATION
The TCPalm Editorial Board has no recommendation on how to vote on Amendment 4.
Why: “Historically, it has been this news organization’s policy not to opine on abortion issues. No recommendation.”
The Palm Beach Post is part of the USA TODAY Network.
The Palm Beach Post: YES
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 4.
Why: “Support reproductive freedom: When it comes to something as personal and complicated as pregnancy, politicians are never more qualified to make healthcare decisions than women and their doctors. And doctors should not have to risk going to prison just to treat the patient in front of them. … We understand that many Americans hold sincere beliefs that abortion under any circumstance is wrong. That’s understandable. But a vast majority, in Florida and nationwide, feels otherwise and should not have its rights and health abridged by the few, and certainly not by a paternalistic state legislature that thinks it knows best.”
Tampa Bay Times: YES
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 4.
Why: “In 2022, the Florida Legislature banned most abortions after 15 weeks. In 2023, the state moved further, with Gov. Ron DeSantis signing legislation banning abortion after six weeks with limited exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. That six-week ban — one of the strictest in the nation — took effect in May (2024). Florida’s rush to curtail a right that existed for decades shows the danger of politicizing health care decisions and the extent the state’s Republican-led government is out of touch with public sentiment. … Women deserve the time and discretion to make informed medical choices, and Amendment 4 would provide that space and autonomy. It also would give doctors the certainty they need to care for their patients and the medical profession the protection to serve a growing state. The measure is also in sync with public attitudes on abortion, where Americans have long balanced the issues of privacy and life.”
Miami Herald: YES
The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 4.
Why: “The ban is cruelest to women who need an abortion to protect their own health but cannot get one because — even though the ban has such health exceptions — doctors are afraid the state will second-guess their medical judgment.”
The editorial boards of the Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel combined their recommendations for the 2024 Florida Amendments. Below is what both newspapers’ editorial boards have to say about Amendment 4, the abortion amendment.
Orlando Sentinel: YES
South Florida Sun Sentinel: YES
The Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards recommend a Yes vote on Amendment 4.
Why: “Amendment 4 goes beyond abortion. It’s about freedom: In requiring a near total-ban on childbirth choice, Florida lawmakers not only told women what they are expected to do with their bodies. They put barriers on the kind of lives they expect women to lead. They had no right to do so.”
2024 Florida Amendments: Amendment 5, annual adjustments to the value of certain Homestead exemptions aka ‘homestead exemption amendment’
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead exemptions that apply solely to levies other than school district levies and for which every person who has legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another person legally or naturally dependent upon the owner is eligible. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2025.
TCPalm, also known as Treasure Coast newspapers, is part of the USA TODAY Network, covering Indian River County, Martin County and St. Lucie County in Florida.
TCPalm: NO
The TCPalm Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 5.
Why: “While those of us who own homestead properties might potentially benefit from a small tax cut, the seemingly never-ending process of asking voters to (artificially) limit their property tax values through constitutional amendments every few years is exhausting. The potential unintended consequences ― from local governments raising millage to make up for revenue shortfalls or cost-shifts to businesses, small or large, that don’t have homesteads ― seem to be rarely considered.”
Digging deeper into Amendment 5: Vote yes or no on Florida Amendments? What Amendment 5 means, homestead exemption proposal
The Palm Beach Post is part of the USA TODAY Network.
The Palm Beach Post: NO
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 5.
Why: “Amendment 5 sounds good. It would allow annual inflation adjustments to homestead property tax exemptions for the value of the exemption that applies to non-school taxes. Simply put, if the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation, grows, then so would the tax break on your home. Enticing but problematic for local communities. The Post recommends voters reject this amendment with a ‘no’ vote. It creates the deceptive impression that state lawmakers are giving homeowners a bigger tax break. In fact they’re proposing a change that would diminish revenue badly needed for counties and municipalities to operate and provide the multiple services that make our communities livable.”
Tampa Bay Times: YES
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 5.
Why: “Indexing Florida’s homestead exemption to inflation is a good idea: This common-sense change would give Florida homeowners the full benefit of a tax break they’re already promised. Property taxes in Florida are set by local governments ― cities, counties, school districts and special taxing districts ― to fund their operations. While taxes are levied on a home’s assessed value, the state constitution provides a homestead exemption for a permanent residence, which reduces the amount of tax a homeowner pays.”
Miami Herald: YES
The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Amendment 5.
Why: “Amendment 5 on the November ballot is a reasonable proposal that would give Florida homeowners greater benefit from their homestead tax exemption ― and a bit of relief they could really use, given our housing affordability crisis. Homeowners in this state are allowed a homestead exemption of $25,000 from all property taxes and another $25,000 exemption on the value of property between $50,000 and $75,000, except on taxes levied for schools. The exemptions apply if you live in your home. Amendment 5 would apply to the second $25,000 exemption. The amendment would adjust the amount of the exemption based on the inflation rate ― meaning, under current conditions, the amount of the exemption would rise, a win for homeowners.”
The editorial boards of the Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel combined their recommendations for most of the 2024 Florida Amendments. Below is what both newspapers’ editorial boards have to say about Amendment 5, the “homestead exemption” amendment.
Orlando Sentinel: NO
South Florida Sun Sentinel: NO
The Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards recommend a No vote on Amendment 5.
Why: “Voters should say ‘no’ to keep current homestead exemptions: One of the Legislature’s worst traits is to cut taxes at someone else’s expense. And that’s the problem with Amendment 5. It would provide cost-of-living adjustments to part of the homestead exemption that offset the taxable value of owner-occupied residences. It’s the part between $50,000 and $75,000 of a home’s value as applied to the tax bases of all local governments except schools. Amendment 5 would not change the basic homestead exemption, which exempts property taxes on the first $25,000 of a home’s value. But it could reduce taxes paid of all governmental agencies except schools on the exemption that now excludes valuations between $50,000 and $75,000 of a home’s value. If inflation were to go up, the city, county and special district taxes on that other part would go down unless those governing boards raise tax rates. In other words, revenue that pays for police, fire, roads, parks and other municipal and county services could be cut, and while that extra exemption may not save individual taxpayers much, it could be devastating to local governments.”
Sponsor: Florida Legislature
Summary: Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution which requires public financing for campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.
Florida Amendment 6: Vote yes or no on Florida Amendments? What Amendment 6 means, cleaner elections proposal
TCPalm, also known as Treasure Coast newspapers, is part of the USA TODAY Network, covering Indian River County, Martin County and St. Lucie County in Florida.
TCPalm: NO
The TCPalm Editorial Board recommended a No vote on Amendment 6.
Why: “Florida enacted a public campaign finance law in 1986, and voters, right or wrong, added it to the constitution in 1998 with 64% of the vote. Voters rejected repealing it in 2010. There’s no reason to keep asking. No.”
The Palm Beach Post is part of the USA TODAY Network.
The Palm Beach Post: NO
The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 6.
Why: “Don’t kill public financing: Money has long been an issue in running for public office, especially for candidates who aren’t multimillionaires. But the Florida Legislature’s GOP supermajority is fine with that and has come up with an undemocratic trick that would make it harder for less-wealthy people to run, while also making our statewide office-seekers even more beholden to special interests, lobbyists and dark money PACs.”
Tampa Bay Times: NO
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 6.
Why: “If you think that special interests, big out-of-state donors and limitless campaign spending are healthy for Florida’s political environment, this amendment is for you. Otherwise, vote no. Amendment 6 would repeal the Florida program that provides public financing for some statewide political candidates who agree to campaign spending limits. This reasonable, voluntary tradeoff helps to reduce the influence of big-money politics while providing voters with a broader slate of candidates to consider.”
Miami Herald: NO
The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 6.
Why: “Florida voters are being asked to repeal a constitutional amendment that allows taxpayer money to be used by candidates running for top state offices, including governor. A ‘yes’ vote for Amendment 6 − the Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns − would kill the Florida program that provides matching, public financing for those running for office, a boost for candidates with limited financial means. We recommend a ‘no’ vote, which will keep the original 1998 constitutional amendment on the books. Although this measure has not always worked entirely as Floridians had hoped, it was passed due to concerns over the high cost of running for office − and remains a reality. If this measure is repealed, it’s unlikely any such protective action will ever make it to the Florida constitution again.”
The editorial boards of the Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel combined their recommendations for most of the 2024 Florida Amendments. Below is what both newspapers’ editorial boards have to say about Amendment 6, the repeal public campaign financing amendment.
Orlando Sentinel: NO
South Florida Sun Sentinel: NO
The Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards recommend a No vote on Amendment 6.
Why: “Keep campaign finance laws in place: Vote ‘no’ on Amendment 6. Special interests are already too influential. The targeted program awards matching funds for political contributions of $250 or less from Florida residents. The money goes to candidates for governor and the cabinet who agree to limit total spending to $2 per registered voter in a governor’s race and $1 per voter for races for attorney general, agriculture commissioner and chief financial officer. They can put no more than $25,000 into their own campaigns. Critics complain that it subsidizes candidates who don’t need the money, but it also gives assistance to low-budget candidates who try to compete with the big bucks.”
This article originally appeared on Florida Today: Vote yes or no on Florida Amendments? Here are 6 newspaper endorsements
