Campaign Finance Board Interferes with Elections While NYC Progressives Claim to Champion Democracy

The unelected Campaign Finance Board of the city recently denied Mayor Adams over $4 million in matching funds for his reelection efforts, highlighting the profoundly undemocratic aspects of New York’s public campaign finance system.

The board ruled Adams ineligible to receive public funds based on alleged criminal activities and corruption. However, his trial on federal charges isn’t slated to begin until April, meaning a factual determination of guilt has yet to be established.

Moreover, those charges appear politically motivated (reportedly as retribution against Adams for contesting President Biden’s handling of the border crisis).

Indeed, when it comes to public finances, even the appearance of impropriety is considered unacceptable.

While Adams can appeal this ruling, and he still possesses millions in his campaign fund, this development poses a significant blow to his candidacy.

Once again, this action comes from the CFB, which is neither directly elected nor accountable to the voters of New York—or really to anyone at all.

Yet it operates as if it possesses a public mandate to influence and determine election outcomes.

Take the 2013 mayoral race as an example: The CFB abruptly withheld matching funds from then-Comptroller John Liu over allegations of corruption, effectively clearing the path in the Democratic primary (and all but securing a general election victory) for the incompetent, communist-sympathizing Bill de Blasio from Cambridge.

That had significant repercussions for all New Yorkers, eventually leading to an increase in crime, deteriorating schools, the chaos surrounding COVID, and overall civic decline.

(It’s worth noting that the CFB also influenced the mayoral race in 2000 by changing rules about fund distributions after the 9/11 attacks caused a delay in the primaries.)

Now, the leftists targeting Adams are gleeful over this ruling.

The matching funds rules themselves widen the pool of candidates adept at navigating the public finance system, distributing an extravagant $8 for every qualifying $1 in donations—

all funded by the taxpayers.

Progressives in New York City habitually claim that democracy is under siege.

No matter the outcome of Adams’ situation, the recent intervention by the CFB serves as a stark reminder that the progressive interpretation of democracy often lacks true democratic foundation.