HB 1271 would amend Florida’s campaign communications law to give voters a clearer and stronger right to stop campaign-related telephone calls and text messages. Under the bill, once a voter indicates they do not consent to receive these communications, the candidate, organization, or other responsible person must immediately stop contacting that voter. For phone calls, the voter could say during the call that they no longer wish to receive calls; for text messages, replying “Stop” would be treated as withdrawal of consent.
The bill also creates an enforcement mechanism for voters. If communications continue after a voter revokes consent, the voter could seek an injunction in court to stop the violation and, if successful, recover reasonable attorney fees and costs. In addition, the bill keeps the existing criminal penalty for willful violations of the section, classifying them as a first-degree misdemeanor, and it expands the definition of “person” to clearly include candidates, political committees, party committees, independent expenditure groups, and business entities or their agents acting on their behalf.
HB 1271 would tighten and clarify Florida Statutes section 106.147 governing text message and telephone solicitation in campaign communications. It would impose an immediate cease-contact requirement after a voter opts out, establish a private right of action for injunctive relief, and authorize fee shifting for successful voters. The bill would affect candidates, political committees, political parties, independent expenditure organizations, and related agents or business entities engaged in campaign outreach, while leaving the existing misdemeanor penalty framework in place for willful violations.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been treated as a consumer-privacy and voter-protection measure, with no recorded committee debate or roll-call votes in the provided materials. Its failure to advance out of the Government Operations Subcommittee suggests it did not generate enough support to move forward, but the absence of transcripts makes it difficult to identify any formal opposition or support statements. Overall, the bill’s framing indicates a generally protective approach toward voters’ ability to opt out of campaign contact.
The main points of potential contention are the added compliance burden on campaigns and political organizations versus the voter’s right to stop unwanted outreach. Supporters would likely emphasize privacy, consent, and a simple opt-out mechanism, while opponents might object to the private right of action, attorney-fee exposure, and the possibility of litigation over campaign communications. The expanded definition of covered “person” also broadens liability to a wide range of political and business actors, which could be a concern for groups involved in independent expenditures or coordinated outreach.