UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term 2022

(Argued: Wednesday May 10, 2023 Decided: July 3, 2024)

Nos. 21-2518, 21-2557

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

UPSTATE JOBS PARTY, MARTIN BABINEC, JOHN BULLIS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,

-v.-

PETER S. KOSINSKI, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS CO-CHAIR COMMISSIONER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, HENRY T. BERGER, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS CO-CHAIR COMMISSIONER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ESSMA BAGNUOLA, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ANTHONY J. CASALE, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. *

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, RAGGI, and NARDINI, Circuit Judges.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption to conform to * the above.

1 Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Upstate Jobs Party (“Upstate Jobs”) and two of its leaders (collectively, “UJP”) sued Defendants-Appellants-Cross- Appellees, Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections (collectively, the “State Board”), over campaign finance regulations that allow parties—which, by definition, have demonstrated a certain level of statewide support—to accept and transfer campaign contributions in ways that non-party candidate- nominating organizations (i.e., “independent bodies”) cannot. Upstate Jobs, an independent body, claims that it is similarly situated to parties because both itself and parties nominate candidates that compete in the same elections. As such, UJP contends that New York’s preferential treatment of parties violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Upstate Jobs and Martin Babinec, its founder, also assert First Amendment violations, alleging that New York’s campaign finance rules distinguishing between parties and independent bodies are not closely drawn to a sufficient state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance thereof.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, C.J.) determined that differences in contribution limits applicable to parties and independent bodies violate the Fourteenth and the First Amendments. The district court separately determined that allowing parties but not independent bodies to maintain so-called “housekeeping accounts” did not violate either amendment. UJP and the State Board both appealed. Because parties and independent bodies are not similarly situated, we REVERSE in part and AFFIRM in part the district court’s judgment as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims. And, because the state’s contribution limits and housekeeping account exception are closely drawn to serve the state’s anticorruption interests, we REVERSE in part and AFFIRM in part the district court’s judgment as to the First Amendment claims. FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTS: SHAWN TOOMEY SHEEHY (Edward Wenger & Phillip Michael Gordon, on the brief), Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC, Haymarket, VA; Michael Burger, Santiago Burger LLP, Rochester, NY, on the brief.

2 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES: SARA