Adams neglects to tackle campaign irregularities in final filing opportunity
In 2021, the mayor's campaign team did not address multiple inquiries posed by the Campaign Finance Board.
TroibNews 
NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Eric Adams has chosen not to answer several critical questions regarding his 2021 campaign in a recent filing, leaving local election auditors with uncertainties about suspected straw donations, the funding of over 150 fundraisers, and the details surrounding who was raising contributions on the mayor's behalf.
These omissions further complicate the narrative of Adams’ initial mayoral campaign, which is pivotal to the five-count federal indictment against him that alleges a bribery scheme tied to the Turkish government. Adams has pled not guilty to the charges and is campaigning for reelection in 2025.
The New York City Campaign Finance Board reviews the financial records of all campaigns to identify discrepancies, missed deadlines, and other violations of campaign finance regulations. In May, the board released a draft audit of Adams’ 2021 election efforts. The Adams campaign submitted its response on Nov. 29, which was acquired by PMG via a Freedom of Information Law request.
The board is now set to conduct a final audit, which may lead to penalties. While the campaign responded to many of the board's inquiries, it left several pressing issues inadequately addressed.
For example, the draft audit noted over 50 potential straw donors, individuals whose contributions were funded by others. Such straw donations are commonly used to bypass contribution limits or obscure the source of funding, rendering them illegal in New York elections.
The board recommended that the campaign return these questionable contributions. However, the response document obtained by PMG did not refer to the potentially unlawful donations.
Additionally, the board flagged nearly 60 groups of donations that it suspects were bundled by intermediaries for the campaign. These donations were generally received on the same day from individuals affiliated with the same employer.
Identifying these suspected bundlers, as required by the board, would shed light on who was trying to gain favor with Adams during his 2021 campaign. Nonetheless, the campaign compliance attorney, Vito Pitta, did not address the issue of the suspected intermediaries in his Nov. 29 submission.
The board opted not to comment, and Pitta did not respond to a request for commentary, although the campaign has previously asserted that there were no undisclosed bundlers.
Moreover, the campaign has faced challenges related to its purported fundraisers.
The board accounted for 158 fundraisers claimed to be funded by the campaign but noted that no expenditure receipts had been presented to substantiate this claim. Absent that documentation, these expenses would be classified as in-kind contributions.
This categorization could lead to significant complications for the campaign, especially since many of the in-kind contributions flagged by the board originated from sources that are prohibited, such as businesses.
The draft audit report was provided to Adams’ campaign on May 31, with an initial response deadline set for July 1. The campaign received multiple extensions as Pitta insisted more time was needed to handle the extensive report, but the board established Nov. 29 as the final deadline, warning of potential fines for noncompliance.
Pending the board's final audit, the campaign might face fines exceeding half a million dollars, according to The New York Times. The final amount could be much lower if the board concludes that the campaign has adequately addressed certain issues identified in the draft audit.
It remains unclear when the board will disclose its final audit or whether this will occur prior to the June 2025 Democratic primary in which Adams intends to seek reelection.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
These omissions further complicate the narrative of Adams’ initial mayoral campaign, which is pivotal to the five-count federal indictment against him that alleges a bribery scheme tied to the Turkish government. Adams has pled not guilty to the charges and is campaigning for reelection in 2025.
The New York City Campaign Finance Board reviews the financial records of all campaigns to identify discrepancies, missed deadlines, and other violations of campaign finance regulations. In May, the board released a draft audit of Adams’ 2021 election efforts. The Adams campaign submitted its response on Nov. 29, which was acquired by PMG via a Freedom of Information Law request.
The board is now set to conduct a final audit, which may lead to penalties. While the campaign responded to many of the board's inquiries, it left several pressing issues inadequately addressed.
For example, the draft audit noted over 50 potential straw donors, individuals whose contributions were funded by others. Such straw donations are commonly used to bypass contribution limits or obscure the source of funding, rendering them illegal in New York elections.
The board recommended that the campaign return these questionable contributions. However, the response document obtained by PMG did not refer to the potentially unlawful donations.
Additionally, the board flagged nearly 60 groups of donations that it suspects were bundled by intermediaries for the campaign. These donations were generally received on the same day from individuals affiliated with the same employer.
Identifying these suspected bundlers, as required by the board, would shed light on who was trying to gain favor with Adams during his 2021 campaign. Nonetheless, the campaign compliance attorney, Vito Pitta, did not address the issue of the suspected intermediaries in his Nov. 29 submission.
The board opted not to comment, and Pitta did not respond to a request for commentary, although the campaign has previously asserted that there were no undisclosed bundlers.
Moreover, the campaign has faced challenges related to its purported fundraisers.
The board accounted for 158 fundraisers claimed to be funded by the campaign but noted that no expenditure receipts had been presented to substantiate this claim. Absent that documentation, these expenses would be classified as in-kind contributions.
This categorization could lead to significant complications for the campaign, especially since many of the in-kind contributions flagged by the board originated from sources that are prohibited, such as businesses.
The draft audit report was provided to Adams’ campaign on May 31, with an initial response deadline set for July 1. The campaign received multiple extensions as Pitta insisted more time was needed to handle the extensive report, but the board established Nov. 29 as the final deadline, warning of potential fines for noncompliance.
Pending the board's final audit, the campaign might face fines exceeding half a million dollars, according to The New York Times. The final amount could be much lower if the board concludes that the campaign has adequately addressed certain issues identified in the draft audit.
It remains unclear when the board will disclose its final audit or whether this will occur prior to the June 2025 Democratic primary in which Adams intends to seek reelection.
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
