Lessons for New York Candidates and Committees from the DSA Decision
By: Joseph T. Burns and Avi Zagelbaum
Campaigns and political committees in New York should take note of a recent decision by the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversing a civil penalty imposed by the New York State Board of Elections (“NYSBOE”) in connection with the 2022 election cycle.
In Matter of Johnson v. McManus (DSA for the Many), decided April 9, 2026, the Third Department vacated more than $200,000 in penalties assessed against a political committee associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Although the respondents prevailed, the decision underscores both the highly technical nature of New York’s campaign finance regime and the risks that arise when compliance questions are addressed after the fact rather than at the outset.
Under New York’s Election Law, multiple candidates may authorize a multi-candidate committee to raise and spend funds on their behalf. Where such authorization is properly obtained, contributions to the committee are deemed contributions to each participating candidate and must be allocated accordingly. This structure allows for coordinated activity, but it also imposes specific statutory requirements, including the execution of appropriate authorization filings.
In this case, DSA For the Many registered as a multi-candidate committee supporting a slate of DSA-backed candidates in the 2022 election cycle. It was undisputed that the committee did not obtain authorization from 12 of the 13 candidates it supported. The NYSBOE took the position that, absent proper authorization, the committee’s expenditures constituted contributions in excess of applicable limits and sought to impose penalties pursuant to the Election Law.
That Election Law provision, however, applies to the acceptance of contributions in excess of statutory limits, not the making of contributions. The Third Department held that this distinction was dispositive. Because the NYSBOE’s theory rested on the committee’s expenditures, the statutory basis for the penalty did not apply. The court declined to extend the provision beyond its plain language, emphasizing the Election Law’s detailed and carefully constructed framework.
The court further held that, even if the statute were applicable, the BOE had failed to establish the required element of intent. Election Law Section 14-126(2) applies only where the conduct occurs under circumstances “evincing an intent to violate” the law. Here, the record reflected that the committee had engaged and communicated with the NYSBOE regarding its obligations and operated under a contemporaneous understanding – albeit disputed – regarding the need for candidate authorizations. In the absence of evidence demonstrating knowing or intentional noncompliance, the penalty could not be sustained.
Although the decision resulted in a complete reversal of the penalty, it should not be read as relaxing the underlying compliance obligations applicable to multi-candidate committees. To the contrary, the case highlights the extent to which enforcement actions in this area may turn on highly technical statutory distinctions and fact-specific inquiries, including the type of committee in question, the nature of its fundraising and expenditures, and the documentation of its compliance efforts.
Notably, the court did not hold that the committee’s approach was substantively compliant with the Election Law. Rather, it concluded that the particular enforcement mechanism invoked by the NYSBOE did not apply on the facts presented and that the requisite intent had not been established. Different facts, or reliance on a different statutory provision, could have produced a different outcome.
For campaigns, candidates, and those advising them, the practical lesson is straightforward. Multi-candidate committees may offer significant strategic advantages, but they present compliance risks that are not always intuitive. Questions surrounding candidate authorization, contribution limits, and allocation methodologies should be addressed at the outset of an election cycle, with appropriate documentation and on the advice of counsel.
As this case demonstrates, the cost of getting it wrong can be substantial, and the availability of a successful defense may depend on facts that cannot be recalled or reconstructed after the fact. For candidates, campaign staff, and political committees, early legal guidance remains the most effective way to mitigate risk.
