SB945 amends Virginia’s campaign finance laws to create a formal appeal process for civil penalties assessed under Title 24.2, Chapter 9.3. A person or committee that receives a penalty may file a petition with the State Board of Elections within 60 days of receiving written notice. The petition must explain the grounds for appeal, and the Board must hold a public hearing with advance certified-mail notice to the petitioner.
The bill limits appeals to two main questions: whether circumstances close in time to the filing deadline made compliance or requesting an extension impracticable, or whether there was an administrative error in assessing the penalty. If the Board finds good cause, it may grant relief such as reducing or forgiving a penalty, retroactively extending a deadline, or ordering another appropriate remedy. However, the Board may not use this process to excuse a filing that is otherwise required by law. The Board must issue a written opinion after each appeal, publish it on the Department of Elections website, and mail it to the petitioner; that decision is final and not subject to further appeal. The bill also tolls the deadline for notifying an attorney for the Commonwealth of a violation while an appeal is pending.
Impact
The bill adds a new section, § 24.2-953.6, to Virginia’s campaign finance code and gives the State Board of Elections explicit authority to hear and decide penalty appeals. It creates procedural rights for persons and committees facing civil penalties, establishes hearing and notice requirements, authorizes limited equitable relief, requires publication of decisions, and pauses related enforcement timing while an appeal is pending. The measure affects campaign finance filers, political committees, and the State Board, while leaving intact the underlying obligation to file required reports.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan or at least unanimous support, with every recorded vote showing passage without any negative votes in committee, on the floor, and on the House substitute. The lack of recorded opposition suggests the measure was viewed as a procedural fairness or administrative cleanup bill rather than a controversial policy change. The substitute was also agreed to unanimously, indicating consensus on the final language.
Contention
No major contention is reflected in the available record. The main policy balance in the bill is between providing relief from penalties where compliance was impracticable or the penalty was wrongly assessed, and preserving the integrity of campaign finance reporting requirements by prohibiting any exemption from filing obligations. Any potential concern would likely come from those worried that expanded appeal authority could soften enforcement, while supporters would emphasize due process, error correction, and fairness in penalty administration.