Board of Elections Enforcement Counsel Settles with NYSUT over Alleged Election Law Violations

It was reported this week that the New York State United Teachers union (NYSUT) has agreed to a $100,000 settlement with Risa Sugarman, chief enforcement counsel for the New York State Board of Elections. Sugarman’s complaint alleged that NYSUT violated election law by ignoring a law that took effect in 2016 that prohibits political action committees (PACs) – which are allowed to have contact directly with candidates or campaigns, but, are subject to contribution limits – from giving to an independent expenditure committee (IE) which has no spending or fund raising limits, but, is not allowed to have any contact with candidates or campaigns.

The 2016 law was designed to prevent PACs from skirting contribution limits by funneling money to IEs that are under the same operational control. Sugarman’s lawsuit alleged that New Yorkers for a Brighter Future (NYSUT’s PAC) illegally donated $700,000 to the Fund for Great Public Schools (a NYSUT controlled IE) in November 2016. The complaint argued that the same individuals had “actual and strategic control over the day-to-day affairs of both the political action committee and the independent expenditure committee”. NYSUT argued that it had created a firewall around both their PAC and IE and were therefore not in violation of the law. Sugarman’s complaint, however, alleged that the PAC and IE committee shared office space, phone numbers, email servers, bank accounts, funding sources and other operations. According to the terms of the settlement, NYSUT does not admit any wrongdoing. A NYSUT spokesman said that rather than proceed with an expensive and protracted legal fight the union decided to settle the case without any finding or admission that they violated the law.

A NYSUT spokesman said:

“Anti-union forces know that when our members stand together in solidarity we can’t be beaten at the ballot box or broken by outside pressure. Instead, they try to weaponize New York’s complicated and ever-changing election laws by filing baseless complaints after every election cycle. Even though we have strictly adhered to the law and the advice of our legal counsel during every election cycle in question, our opponents know their bogus complaints can result in time-consuming and costly investigations”