Adams Fails To Address Campaign Irregularities In Last-chance Filing

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Eric Adams declined to address some of the most pressing questions about his 2021 campaign in a new filing, leaving local election auditors in the dark about suspected straw donations, who paid for more than 150 fundraisers and who exactly was raising contributions on behalf of the mayor.

The omissions add to the intrigue around Adams’ first campaign for mayor, which plays a key role in the five-count federal indictment against him alleging a bribery scheme involving the Turkish government. Adams has pleaded not guilty to those charges and is running for reelection in 2025.

The New York City Campaign Finance Board pores over the paperwork of every campaign to identify the inevitable bookkeeping discrepancies, missed deadlines and other infractions of campaign finance law. In May, it issued a draft audit to Adams’ 2021 election effort. On Nov. 29, the Adams campaign sent its response, which was obtained Tuesday by POLITICO through a Freedom of Information Law request.

The board will now conduct a final audit that could result in fines. And while the campaign addressed the lion’s share of the board’s queries, it left some of the most pressing issues unresolved.

In its draft audit, for instance, the board identified more than 50 possible straw donors — meaning people whose contribution was paid for by someone else. Straw donations are often used to exceed contribution maximums or conceal the true source of money, which is why they’re outlawed in New York elections.

In its audit, the board recommended relinquishing the straw contributions to it. But, in the response document obtained by POLITICO, the campaign made no mention of the potentially illicit donations.

The board also identified nearly 60 groups of donations it suspected of being bundled together by an intermediary on behalf of the campaign. The groups of donations were typically given on the same day by people working for the same employer.

Identifying the suspected bundlers, as the board requires, would provide more insight into who was currying favor with Adams during his 2021 run. However, the mayor’s campaign compliance attorney, Vito Pitta, did not mention the suspected intermediaries in his Nov. 29 response.

The board declined to comment. And Pitta didn’t respond to a request for comment, though the campaign has said in the past that it did not have any undisclosed bundlers.

Even purported campaign fundraisers have presented a problem for Team Adams.

The board identified 158 fundraisers the campaign said it paid for, yet did not provide any expenditure receipts to prove their claim. Without that documentation, those expenses would be considered in-kind contributions.

That would present a major problem for the campaign, as many of the in-kind contributions identified by the board came from prohibited sources like businesses.

The board released its draft audit report to Adams’ campaign on May 31, and Adams’ response was initially due July 1. The campaign was granted several extensions as Pitta argued they needed more time to respond to the voluminous report, but the board set Nov. 29 as the final hard deadline, with the campaign risking fines if it missed the date.

The campaign could be on the hook for more than half a million dollars in fines pending the board’s final audit, The New York Times reported. The actual total may be far less, though, if the board finds the campaign addressed certain issues raised in the draft audit.

It was not immediately clear when the board would publish its final audit, or whether it would do so before the June 2025 Democratic primary in which Adams plans to stand for reelection.