China’s Influence in NYC Elections
There’s been some intriguing coverage recently about how China is impacting the New York City elections. A team of nine reporters did a thorough job documenting how Chinese government agents allegedly helped defeat state senators who were associated with the Taiwanese president.
The piece suggested that these agents established numerous charities throughout Manhattan and the boroughs, violating tax-exempt status by engaging in political activism.
Interference in the Election
The comprehensive 4,000-word article, featured prominently on the front page, provided a refreshing change from the relentless focus on President Trump’s actions. It seems they struggled to pin any blame on him for this apparent election interference by foreign entities.
It’s interesting to think—the narrative might have taken a different turn if China had actually supported Trump, especially with Democrats like Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul involved.
In that scenario, perhaps we would have seen a repeat of the Russiagate saga, but this time dubbed Chinagate.
Reporters uncovered a network of Chinese “Hometown Association” groups, ostensibly created and managed by the Chinese consulate in Manhattan.
The findings indicated that over 50 organizations linked to Beijing have mobilized their members to fund or back political candidates over the last five years, even though many of these were non-profit charities prohibited by election law.
Video evidence purportedly showed rituals that reaffirmed China’s Taiwan policy, with New Yorkers pledging to further what they called the homeland’s developmental interests.
Scrutinizing Involvement
Furthermore, the article highlighted at least 19 registered charities that seemingly disregarded campaign bans. It notes that even after answering “no” to an IRS question concerning campaign involvement, they still provided support and facilitated fundraising.
The IRS declined to comment on the specifics, which is an interesting point in itself.
If these groups were helping Republicans, it seems quite plausible that Attorney General Letitia James would be all over this case.
But as long as they’re assisting the “right” team, perhaps it’s not perceived as a problem.
The article stated that nine NGOs linked to China are backing Mayor Adams’ reelection campaign. A leader from the Chonglu American Association mentioned mobilizing 2,000 members to support the mayor, proudly stating they were united in their voting efforts.
This looks like a story that required extensive investigation
Reflecting on the Coverage
Yet, the New York Times seemed to hold back on previous incidents until a notable event occurred: longtime Adams associate Winnie Greco handed a reporter a potato chip bag filled with cash.
Oddly enough, the Times later reported witnessing others from the Adams camp distributing red envelopes at various campaign events—one in Flushing and another in Brooklyn.
It was alleged that financial gestures to Chinese media were common as a way of ensuring favorable coverage.
Also noteworthy was an aide discussing the campaign’s intention to avoid any inappropriate influence, emphasizing that all must comply with the law regarding campaign activities.
Governor Hochul also faced scrutiny with her ties to a front group for the Chinese government. Reportedly, a fundraiser was co-hosted by a nonprofit linked to this group, raising some red flags.
The paper claimed the group’s leader has a shady history, once being convicted of heroin trafficking and smuggling individuals into the U.S.
Legalities of Voting
The article is engaging in its depth, but it does leave a considerable gap. The notion that these associations could sway elections by influencing voters oversimplifies the issues at hand.
If these entities are engaged in illegal political activities, doesn’t it raise questions about the validity of voters who are supposedly American citizens and legally able to vote?
Becoming a citizen involves a thorough naturalization process, which requires not only a green card for a specific duration but also good moral character and passing various tests. Only once these steps are completed can one register to vote.
However, if individuals are pledging loyalty to China, they seem to fall short of the legal citizenship criteria—and therefore their votes could potentially be illegitimate.
This points to a major oversight, especially considering how closely contested some elections are. It leaves me wondering why Times reporters did not address the possibility of illegal voting given the broader context.
I reached out to one of the lead reporters, Michael Forsyth, who has covered China extensively. He likely grasps the nuances of how Beijing operates abroad, including in the U.S. But I haven’t heard back, which leaves me questioning if there’s a significant angle to this election scandal that’s yet to be revealed.
