Mayor Eric Adams’ Legal Battle with the Campaign Finance Board

Mayor Eric Adams has taken legal action against the Campaign Finance Committee, claiming they are engaging in an unjust and undemocratic effort to undermine his campaign.

While he may not have found resolution quickly, he’s at least shedding light on a system that seems to need serious overhaul or perhaps complete abandonment.

Adams is looking for the board to release matching funds exceeding $5 million.

In his submission, he states that the board’s actions are unconstitutional and marked by “arbitrary and whimsical government actions.” He insists that the agency should be required to justify its damaging decisions.

This is definitely a valid point.

The board initially withheld funds from Adams after criminal charges—allegedly politically motivated—were filed against him by the Biden Administration.

Even a federal judge, Nicholas Galaufis, acknowledged the significant issue with the board’s withholding of funds when he dismissed Adams’ previous lawsuits.

He noted that the board didn’t provide a solid justification for denying the funds, as it was based on unproven claims and perceived bias.

Once the federal charges against Adams were dropped, I think it’s only logical that the board should have released the funds.

Instead, they’ve put forth two reasons: 1) they claim he is unqualified because he didn’t provide the necessary information, and 2) they suspect his campaign may have violated the law.

The first reason feels arbitrary at best. Although Adams may not be able to overturn the court’s decision in time to save his campaign, the second assertion appears to contradict Galaufis’ ruling.

It’s troubling that the board assumes guilt before innocence, acting as judge, jury, and executioners—denying matching funds can essentially be a death sentence for campaigns.

This approach seems to reflect how the board operates generally. A previous incident in the 2013 Democratic primary allowed Bill de Blasio to win by withholding funding from his main rival, John Liu.

It’s reminiscent of how funding dynamics can alter outcomes, like in Mike Bloomberg’s final run post-9/11.

This year, Andrew Cuomo faced a hefty fine of $1.3 million over technical issues on his website.

It’s important to consider: the board’s judgment can be profoundly impactful. The generous matching fund rate of 8-1 gives a significant edge to favored candidates.

(When the program was first initiated in 1988, matching rates were just $1-$1, but over time, that’s clearly changed.)

From what I see, this program tends to benefit insiders disproportionately, disadvantaging newcomers. Those who know how to navigate the system seem to fare much better.

Interestingly, many within the board and their staff are often political insiders themselves.

In a worst-case scenario, this seems deeply undemocratic. None of the five members have been elected, and their decisions aren’t subject to public discourse either.

It seems essential for the courts to compel this arbitrary board to release the funds owed to Adams, but ultimately, I think the entire CFB needs to be dismantled to safeguard urban democracy.