NYC’s screwy Campaign Finance Board stiffs Adams, Cuomo while giving socialist Zohran Mamdani millions

New York Post - Apr 16th, 2025

The New York City Campaign Finance Board has withheld nearly $3 million in public matching funds from ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo due to documentation errors and a lack of a personal financial disclosure. Instead, the board awarded $3.8 million to Zohran Mamdani, a socialist candidate trailing in the polls. Despite Cuomo's lead in the polls, reflective of the lackluster alternatives, his campaign shortcomings, including a poorly executed housing plan, have cost him public funding. Mayor Eric Adams also missed out on funds due to unresolved charges and a failure to file necessary disclosures.

This situation underscores the challenges of New York City's public campaign finance system, which has distributed over $14 million in matching funds this year. The system, meant to ensure a fair democratic process, has been criticized for its arbitrary decision-making and significant costs to taxpayers. Mamdani, a candidate with Democratic Socialists of America backing, has significantly benefited from the system, highlighting its controversial aspects. The current scenario draws parallels to past instances where the finance board's decisions influenced mayoral races, raising questions about the effectiveness and fairness of the system.

New York City Eric Adams Andrew Cuomo Zohran Mamdani Democratic Socialists Of America Campaign Finance Board Public Campaign Financing Mayoral Race

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical view of New York City's campaign finance system and specific mayoral candidates, using vivid and emotive language to engage readers. While it addresses timely and relevant topics with potential public interest, the lack of source attribution and balanced perspectives undermines its credibility and accuracy. The story's provocative tone may spark controversy and discussion but is limited in its ability to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the issues. Overall, the article's engaging style is offset by its deficiencies in factual support and transparency, affecting its overall quality and reliability.

Accuracy

The story contains several factual claims that require verification, such as the withholding of $3 million in public matching funds from Andrew Cuomo and the awarding of $3.8 million to Zohran Mamdani. The accuracy of these claims depends on the actual figures and reasons provided by the Campaign Finance Board. Additionally, the article's assertion about Eric Adams being denied funds due to dropped charges needs confirmation. These points highlight a need for more precise data and verification of the board's decisions. The story also references historical precedents, such as the 2013 decision affecting John Liu, which requires fact-checking to ensure accuracy. Overall, while some claims might be accurate, the lack of verifiable sources and precise details lowers the accuracy score.

Balance

The article appears to exhibit a lack of balance, primarily focusing on criticizing the campaign finance system and specific candidates like Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani. The language used, such as 'pathetic' and 'screwy,' suggests a biased perspective. The story does not provide a range of viewpoints or counterarguments, particularly regarding the merits of the public campaign finance system or the candidates' policies. The focus on negative aspects without exploring potential benefits or alternative perspectives creates an imbalanced presentation.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and straightforward manner, with a strong narrative style that conveys the author's perspective effectively. However, the use of colloquial language and phrases like 'killing grannies and pinching fannies' might detract from the professional tone expected in a news article. While the structure is logical and easy to follow, the emotive language and lack of neutrality can affect the overall clarity, making it challenging for readers to discern objective information from opinion.

Source quality

The article does not cite any sources or provide references to support its claims, which diminishes the credibility and reliability of the information presented. The lack of attributed sources or expert opinions makes it difficult to assess the authority of the claims made. This absence of source quality undermines the article's overall reliability and raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest or biases affecting the reporting.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its reporting, as it does not disclose the basis for its claims or provide any methodology for how information was gathered. There is no explanation of the sources or processes used to verify the facts presented. Additionally, the article does not reveal any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the reporting, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the context or factors impacting impartiality.