Opinion 25-54
May 15, 2025
Digest: (1) A judge whose remaining
unexpended campaign funds at the conclusion of his/her window period total
$2,500 or less may treat such funds as de minimis and
use them for any lawful non-political purpose connected to judicial office, in
order to facilitate closing down the campaign account. To
the extent that our prior opinions required a candidate to discern whether such
purpose is also “within the contemplation of campaign donors,” we hereby modify
our prior opinions as needed to abolish that requirement.
(2) A judge with de minimis unexpended campaign funds may use them to purchase
artwork for the judge’s courtroom and chambers. The images must be
consistent with the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary, and display of
artwork in the courtroom is subject to appropriate administrative approvals.
Rules: Election Law § 14-130; 22 NYCRR 100.0(Q); 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.5(A)(1)(c); 100.5(A)(2); 100.5(A)(4)(a); 100.5(A)(5); Opinions 22-102; 18-117; 16-97; 16-29/16-50; 14-148; 12-129(A)-(G); 12-95(A); 09-167; 08-151; 06-162.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge is approaching the end of his/her window period and has less than $2,500 remaining in his/her campaign account. The judge asks if he/she may use the unexpended campaign funds to purchase artwork featuring historical public figures, locations and events to be displayed in his/her courtroom and chambers. We note that the judge’s examples all focus on subject matter widely recognized as significant to our nation, such as pictures of the U.S. Supreme Court building and the signing of the U.S. Constitution, a collection of U.S. Chief Justice portraits, and pictures of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Theodore Roosevelt.
A judge or non-judge candidate for elective judicial office may personally participate in his/her own campaign for judicial office during the window period, subject to certain limitations (see 22 NYCRR 100.0[Q] [defining “window period”]; 100.5[A][1][c]; 100.5[A][2]). For example, a judicial candidate must not use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the candidate or others (see Election Law § 14-130; 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][5]).
A judicial candidate may use his/her campaign funds throughout the post-election window period to buy campaign advertisements and attend political events (see Opinion 16-29/16-50 [describing some permissible uses]). At the conclusion of the window period, a judicial candidate whose unexpended campaign funds “exceed $2,500 must direct his/her campaign committee to make one reasonable, bona fide attempt to return all the funds pro rata to contributors” (Opinion 18-117 [internal quotation omitted]). After such an attempt, unexpended campaign funds may be used “for any purpose consistent with prior opinions, except that funds remaining after the expiration of the window period may not be used for victory parties or to attend political events” (Opinion 08-151). Where unexpended campaign funds are $2,500 or less at the end of the window period, a judicial candidate may immediately treat them as de minimis (see Opinion 16-29/16-50).
As a matter of judicial ethics, campaign funds may not be retained for use in a future campaign (see Opinion 14-148) and may not be used for any private benefit (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][5]). Nor may they be donated to any person or entity, including charitable organizations, other than the Catalyst Public Service Fellowship Program (see Opinion 16-29/16-50) or a not-for-profit entity that operates a daycare center in a court of the Unified Court System for litigants who do not have access to childcare (see Opinion 22-102). That is, a judicial candidate who wishes to donate de minimis unexpended campaign funds may do so only to the two charities we have expressly approved. We have also advised that, subject to any necessary administrative approvals, a judicial candidate may use campaign funds to “purchase books or other reference materials to be donated to the courthouse law libraries” of the judge’s court (Opinion 16-29/16-50).
Presumptively, campaign contributors give funds to a judicial candidate’s campaign committee for the very specific purpose of furthering the candidate’s campaign (see generally Opinions 16-97; 16-29/16-50). Thus, in determining whether certain proposed uses of de minimis unexpended campaign funds were ethically permissible, we have on occasion considered whether such uses were likely to be “within the contemplation of campaign contributors” and have reached different conclusions (compare Opinion 12-129[A]-[G] [advising unsuccessful candidate may use de minimis campaign funds before end of window period to hold modest and reasonable social event to thank campaign volunteers] with Opinion 22-102 [prohibiting the use of unexpended campaign funds to commission historical plaque]).
On further consideration, we believe the guidepost set forth in our prior opinions, requiring a determination of which expenditures are likely to be “within the contemplation of campaign contributors,” relies on subjective viewpoints and contrasting interpretations of the contributors’ intent (see Opinions 16-29/16-50; 12-95(A); cf Opinion 22-102). Indeed, we are cognizant of the fact that some proposed uses of de minimis campaign funds raise concerns of impropriety where they are not sufficiently connected to a candidate’s campaign (see Opinion 06-162 [overruling many opinions]). Nonetheless, in our view, it is unlikely that donors would object to a judicial candidate’s use of de minimis unexpended campaign funds to purchase non-personal items to be displayed on the walls of a judge’s chambers, courtroom, or other areas within a courthouse.
We now believe a more workable standard, one that will ensure greater consistency, is whether the expenditure of de minimis campaign funds is being made for “any lawful non-political purpose connected with judicial office” (Opinion 12-95[A]; see also Opinions 16-97; 16-29/16-50). We introduced this objective standard more than a decade ago as a practical baseline for expending de minimis campaign funds that “need not be returned to contributors on a pro rata basis” (Opinion 12-95[A]). In doing so, we identified a short list of examples that fit into the “non-political purpose” scheme: “the purchase of office supplies, computer software or books” (id.). However, the list is non-exhaustive (see e.g. Opinion 16-97 [including modestly priced laptop for performance of judicial duties if not provided by court system]).
Applying this standard to the present inquiry, we conclude that purchasing artwork depicting significant historical public figures, locations, and events for display in courtroom and chambers (assuming it is lawful) is an ethically permissible use of de minimis campaign funds inasmuch as it serves a non-political purpose that is connected to the judge’s judicial office.
Accordingly, the inquiring judge may use his/her de minimis unexpended campaign funds to purchase artwork for the judge’s courtroom and chambers, which will become the property of the Unified Court System (see e.g. Opinions 16-29/16-50; 06-162; 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][5] [prohibiting use of campaign contributions for “private benefit”]). The images must, of course, be consistent with the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary (see generally 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]; 100.2[B]; 100.5[A][4][a]). We further note that the judge may only display artwork in the courtroom after obtaining appropriate administrative approvals (see Opinion 09-167).
In light of this conclusion, we now overrule point two of Opinion 22-102. Where remaining unexpended campaign funds at the end of the window period are de minimis, they may be used to commission a historical plaque for the judge’s courthouse, regardless of whether such an expenditure was “within the contemplation of campaign contributors.” We also hereby modify other opinions as necessary to eliminate our prior “within the contemplation of campaign contributors” standard. We expect this will make it easier for judges to close their campaign accounts expeditiously after conclusion of the window period.