Upstate Jobs Party, et al. v. Peter S. Kosinski, New York State Board of Elections Co-Chair Commissioner, et al.

When the government restricts political speech, to satisfy the First Amendment, the government must “point to record evidence or legislative findings demonstrating the need to address a special problem.” FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 307 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). This case presents the first opportunity for this Court to establish the quantum of evidence the government must adduce before it can restrict political speech through asymmetrical campaign contribution limits when it is conceded that the government lacks direct evidence of quid pro quo corruption. New York has asymmetrical contribution limits for major parties and independent bodies.1 In fact, major party candidates are allowed to receive, via party transfer, as much as fifteen times the amount that minor party candidates are allowed to receive. The State creates this asymmetry through three interconnected provisions. First, major parties may receive individual contributions up to $138,600, while independent bodies may only receive the substantially lower contribution limits for individuals to candidates (in some cases, fifteen times less). Second, major parties may contribute unlimited amounts to their candidates, while independent bodies may only transfer an amount equivalent to the contribution limits permitted for individuals for that same race. Third, major parties may establish separate bank accounts (called “housekeeping” accounts) where parties can raise and spend unlimited sums of money for ordinary expenses and not for expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. By contrast, 1 New York’s independent bodies are also known as minor parties. (i)