DocketNumber: No. 1D14-3592
Judges: Osterhaus, Rowe, Thomas
Filed Date: 2/23/2015
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion finding that no jurisdiction existed in the trial court to consider the declaratory judgment action below. I write to briefly reiterate that our conclusion on jurisdiction should not be read as an imprimatur on the statute’s constitutional validity.
Article II, section eight of the Florida Constitution mandates “full and public disclosure of [the candidate’s and officer’s] financial interests.” As noted by the Florida Supreme Court, this constitutional mandate serves several laudable purposes, including “the public’s right to know an official’s [financial] interest, deterrence of corruption and conflicting interests, creation of public confidence in Florida’s public officials, and assistance in detecting and prosecuting officials who violate the law.” Plante v. Smathers, 372 So.2d 933, 937 (Fla.1979). The “Sunshine Amendment,” as Article II, section eight is popularly designated, ensures that “[o]ur form of government is based upon an enlightened choice by an informed electorate, and in Florida the people have expressly declared their desire that this information be made available to them by candidates for elected constitutional office.” Id. at 937. And although the statute requires that an initial list of assets assigned to the trust be provided to the Commission on Ethics, the electorate is not informed as to what assets will remain in the trust and what new assets may be acquired.