TALLAHASSEE - Forget the high-stakes bid for the U.S. Senate seat.
The most expensive Florida campaign this year is a $27-million battle between doctors and lawyers over three medical malpractice measures on the Nov. 2 ballot.
And when it comes to money, the lawyers are winning.
Floridians for Patient Protection has raised nearly $20-million, most of it from Florida law firms, many of which have given six-figure contributions, according to campaign finance reports released Tuesday.
Citizens for a Fair Share has raised $7.2-million, mostly from doctors. Its biggest contributor is the Florida Medical Association with $2.8-million, according to reports released by the state elections division.
Those combined numbers dwarf almost any other recent political battle.
Gov. Jeb Bush raised $10.5-million to win re-election in 2002. His challenger, Bill McBride, raised $8.8-million.
In the race between Democrat Betty Castor and Republican Mel Martinez to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, both candidates have raised at least $7-million each, including millions from out-of-state interests hoping to influence the balance in the Senate.
"Good God, that is a lot of money," said Tallahassee lobbyist Ken Plante. "I've heard some other folks looking at doing different ballot measures and talking about needing $5-million. But $27-million? Gosh darn."
The biggest spenders in the law camp are Jacksonville firm Brown Terrell Hogan, which has contributed about $932,000, and West Palm Beach law firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, with about $1-million.
Behind the money are three complex ballot measures.
But it is Amendment 3, pushed by the doctors' lobby, that is drawing the most effort from both groups.
The issue revives the pitched debate about medical malpractice costs. Last year, state lawmakers capped "pain-and-suffering" payments to medical malpractice victims at $500,000. Economic damages were not capped.
But Amendment 3 is a twist. It doesn't address settlements. It addresses how much a lawyer gets paid after winning a medical malpractice suit.
The measure, if approved by voters, would limit lawyers' fees in medical malpractice lawsuits to 30 percent of the first $250,000 of an award and 10 percent of damages over that. Lawyers who succeed in collecting a settlement now receive a sizeable portion of the proceeds, generally 30 percent to 40 percent, plus costs of preparing the case.
Doctors contend such fees have encouraged lawyers to seek outsized judgments to line their pockets.
"If there has been a victim of medical malpractice they should get the lion's share of the award. In a million-dollar judgment, $150,000 plus expenses ought to be enough for a lawyer," said Sandra Mortham, executive director of the Florida Medical Association and chairman of Citizens for a Fair Share.
But the lawyers-backed group Floridians for Patient Protection argues capping lawyer fees would hamper victims' ability to find an attorney who will gamble on their case, since most personal injury lawyers work on contingency.
Fees of $150,000 for a law firm with overhead and staff is nothing when cases drag on for years, the group contends.
"When all else fails, we want to see to it that victims have a right to get the best representation possible," said Jacqueline Imbertson of Jupiter, whose husband nearly died five years ago when he was given the wrong medicine after cardiac surgery. The mistake has required him to have 72 invasive procedures, including a heart transplant, she said.
In a campaign tactic that has inflamed doctors, Floridians for Patient Protection has ignored the language of Amendment 3. Their high-priced campaign instead has focused on the broad allegation that the measure could reduce victims' rights in an arena where they suggest medical malpractice is rampant.
"That message has absolutely zero to do with what the amendment is about," complained Mortham. "It is totally a deception."
Counters Imbertson, "The FMA wants to limit how much you pay your attorney? That is going to solve some problem that doesn't even exist."
