Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance Penalties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State elections board hears inaugural campaign finance penalty appeals; mixed outcomes and several continuances
Summary
On Nov. 17 the Virginia State Board of Elections heard more than a dozen campaign finance penalty appeals created under a 2025 law; the board dismissed some appeals, granted relief for others, continued several to allow filings, and in at least one case assessed a reduced fine. Outcomes were recorded by roll call where noted.
The Virginia State Board of Elections spent the bulk of its Nov. 17 meeting hearing appeals from candidates and committees contesting campaign finance penalties assessed under statutes and local practice. Staff said the appeals process was created by recent General Assembly legislation and noted the board has discretion to grant relief if it finds "good cause." Emily Manarski of the campaign finance team presented the petitions and recommended suggested motion language for each appeal.
Many petitioners told the board their late filings resulted from technical problems, travel and connectivity issues, misunderstandings of reporting schedules, or health and family emergencies. "It was my first time running and I have never been involved in a campaign," said one petitioner, asking for leniency. Others said third-party filers or bookkeeping errors caused missed large-contribution reports.
The board handled each appeal individually. Notable decisions included:
- Friends of Philip Scott (state-assessed $1,000 penalty): Philip Scott said flight delays and internet connectivity problems caused a late filing. After review, the board moved to dismiss Scott's appeal (thereby upholding the assessed penalty); a roll-call vote recorded board members voting Aye to dismiss.
- Sylvia Alexi (state-assessed $100 penalty for a June deadline): Alexi, who said she is a first-time candidate and a full-time parent, sought full relief. The board found good cause under the cited code provision and granted relief by roll-call vote.
- Peanut City PAC (Petitioner Matthew Kinsulin): The committee said it mistakenly entered the wrong date in its calendar and had no prior late filings; the board voted to grant the appeal for the $100 penalty.
- Friends of Matthew Cross (multi-year penalties totaling roughly $9,200): Board members debated whether a statute-of-limitations defense applied to older violations and weighed the registrar's notice practices. After discussion the board voted on motions to dismiss older violations while assessing more recent ones; a motion to assess $1,000 for the most current violation was carried by roll call.
- Tammy Bilski and similar petitioners with closed or dormant bank accounts: The board emphasized that relief cannot relieve the statutory requirement to file; instead, it opted in several cases to continue the matter so petitioners can submit required reports and then return for a decision. Staff agreed to assist petitioners with e-filing if needed.
Board members repeatedly urged registrars and candidates to communicate proactively and noted the appeals process is intended in part as a learning exercise for newer registrars and first-time candidates. Counsel for candidates frequently cited the limits of local notice and the statute governing prosecution or collection (as read during the meeting in several sections cited in meeting materials).
What happens next: the board issued written opinions reflecting today’s decisions within 21 days, as staff explained, and will post them on its website. Several matters were continued for follow-up filings or further legal guidance.
The board concluded the appeals docket and later moved to a closed session for pending litigation and other matters.
