Did Kevin Thomas admit to breaking election law?

State Sen. Kevin Thomas will soon be out of a job, but he may have something else lined up. Thomas, who ended his bid for Congress in March, recently told City & State that state and Nassau County Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs promised him another job if he dropped out of the congressional primary. “I was approached by the party chair, asking me to back off of the primary. And he offered me something else instead,” Thomas said. The problem: If that’s true (which Jacobs denies), such an arrangement may violate state election law.

In an exit interview published on Monday, Thomas said that Jacobs had approached him about dropping out of the race for Congress. That much was already known – Jacobs has said himself that he talked with Democratic candidates interested in running for the 4th Congressional District in hopes of consolidating support around now Rep.-elect Laura Gillen. The party chair is known to discourage primaries when he can. Thomas said that Jacobs made the case to him that a competitive primary could hurt the party’s general election chances – but he also said explicitly that Jacobs had promised him something. “If I exit out and it’ll make it easier for Laura to win, then so be it – as long as the party chair fulfills the promise that he gave me,” Thomas said. Thomas refused to disclose exactly what Jacobs allegedly promised him, though he suggested that his future plans will depend on whether or not Jacobs fulfills the promise.

Reached on Monday, Jacobs denied that he made any such promise to Thomas. “I read that and did not know what he was talking about,” Jacobs wrote in a text message to City & State. “I am sure that I would have said something to the effect that he was a talented elected official that I am sure we would see running for something in the future. Beyond that I did not go.” Jacobs also said he has no current knowledge of what Thomas’ future might hold. 

According to election lawyer Sarah Steiner, a quid pro quo situation as Thomas described it would have been “definitely questionable.” State election law prohibits “pernicious political activities,” which includes “directly or indirectly, (a) promise any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit… to any person… for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any nominating convention or in any election.” However, it would be incredibly difficult to prove the existence of such a situation based only on a verbal agreement which one side denies. Steiner said the legality of the situation depends on what the exact promise was – and Thomas kept his statements vague. He did not offer any additional comments on the record when reached by City & State on Monday.