This investigation documents how Working Families Party coalition campaigns—including mayoral winner Zohran Mamdani, Comptroller candidate Justin Brannan, and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams—appear to have violated disclosure requirements through coordination that may have circumvented rules designed to ensure voter transparency. Equally troubling, documented relationships between Campaign Finance Board personnel and the WFP coalition raise questions about whether oversight itself was compromised.
NYC campaign finance rules establish clear boundaries around coordination and disclosure to ensure voters understand who drives their electoral choices. The 2025 Democratic primary featured sophisticated operations that raise troubling questions: when well-funded outside groups support candidates while campaigns provide “mutual aid” to each other, and when the oversight agency has institutional relationships with the campaigns under scrutiny, are disclosure rules being violated to hide the true power brokers?
A $2+ million elite-funded operation disguised as a grassroots revolution appears to have circumvented NYC disclosure rules through undisclosed coordination. Silicon Valley billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and out-of-state tech entrepreneurs funded sophisticated PAC operations while campaigns coordinated activities that escaped required disclosure—creating documented timing patterns and mathematical improbabilities that suggest deliberate deception about who was driving electoral outcomes. (Click on the image below to enlarge it.)
Table of Contents
- The Blueprint: WFP’s Documented Coordination Strategy
- Act I: June Polling and Fundraising Timeline
- Act II: Coalition Mutual Aid Activities
- Act III: CFB Oversight and Institutional Relationships
- Act IV: Campaign Responses and Financial Documentation
- Conclusion: Questions for Further Examination
đź“‹ The Blueprint: WFP’s Documented Coordination Strategy
The Working Families Party has a documented blueprint that makes their 2025 disclosure failures particularly damning. In their November 9, 2022 post-election memo “How we helped the Dems defy gravity,” WFP leadership explicitly detailed their coordination methodology:
The memo details systematic coordination: “WFP coordinated a significant grassroots IE table” (independent expenditures) and describes how they “brought the coalition back together from the primary” to support endorsed candidates across multiple competitive races.
Why this matters for 2025: WFP documented their expertise in multi-campaign coordination, proving they understand disclosure requirements. This makes their 2025 failures appear deliberate rather than accidental—they knew the rules they later violated.
Act I: June Polling and Fundraising Timeline
The most striking evidence emerged in early June through a sequence of events that raises serious questions about advance information sharing within the Working Families Party’s progressive coalition. On June 11, 2025, Politico reported a bombshell: Zohran Mamdani had overtaken Andrew Cuomo in a new poll just two weeks before the primary. But here’s what made this suspicious: the survey was commissioned by Justin Brannan’s comptroller campaign, not Mamdani’s mayoral bid—yet both operated within the same WFP-endorsed coalition.
The poll, conducted June 6-7, showed Mamdani leading Cuomo 35% to 31%—within the margin of error but politically devastating for the former governor. The poll cost Brannan’s campaign $10,500, but the strategic intelligence clearly benefited the entire WFP-endorsed coalition. According to Politico, the methodology was strategically designed: 61% of responses came from text messages versus 39% from landlines—a distribution that “favored Mamdani given his strength with those responding via text.”
Then came the smoking gun: just two days before poll results became public, on June 9, 2025, at 8:46 AM, Mamdani posted a video publicly endorsing Brannan and explicitly asking supporters to contribute money to his campaign via ActBlue. This video evidence of deliberate coordination suggests Mamdani had advance knowledge of poll results that would boost the entire coalition’s anti-Cuomo strategy—yet no coordination was disclosed as required under CFB rules.1
Even Cuomo’s team recognized the coordination pattern. Spokesperson Rich Azzopardi remarked that it’s “telling that the only polls showing this trend line are paid for by Zohran Mamdani Inc.”—referencing the broader coalition dynamic rather than individual campaigns. Meanwhile, Mamdani spokesperson Andrew Epstein defended the results as evidence of a “disciplined, grassroots campaign”—ironic language given the elite funding sources and apparent coordination activities driving the operation.
⚠️ Did This Violate Coordination Rules?
The WFP’s endorsed slate included Mamdani for mayor, Brannan for comptroller, and Adams for mayor within their strategic ranking. While these candidates built their brands around rejecting elite influence as a “grassroots revolution,” previous reporting documented that their operations were supported by over $2 million in elite PAC spending—including Silicon Valley billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and out-of-state tech entrepreneurs.
Why did Mamdani fundraise for Brannan before voters knew about the poll showing him ahead of Cuomo? The timing suggests the entire coalition strategy relied on advance knowledge of poll results. NYC rules prohibit campaigns from coordinating strategy through shared consultants without disclosure (CFB Rule 6-04(a)(ix)) and from sharing non-public strategic information (Rule 6-04(a)(x)). The timing suggests coordination facilitated through the Working Families Party and/or its affiliated PACs, shared vendors, and consultants that should have been disclosed as coordinated expenditures (CFB Rules 1-08(c) and 1-04(g))—despite the WFP’s documented expertise in coordination from their 2022 blueprint.1
🚨 Missing Required Disclosures
Campaign finance records reveal systematic disclosure violations. Brannan’s filings show no intermediary disclosure for Mamdani, violating the rule requiring campaigns to report when someone else raises money for them (CFB Rule 4-05(c)(v)).
Neither campaign reported in-kind contributions for coordinated activities, violating the rule requiring disclosure of free services or benefits (CFB Rule 1-04(g)). While elite PACs properly reported over $2 million supporting the coalition during the primary campaign, the coordination between individual campaigns escaped disclosure entirely.
This created a transparency gap that systematically deceived voters about the true coordination driving their electoral choices. The WFP’s 2022 blueprint shows they understand coordination requirements, making these disclosure failures particularly damning.
As of July 15, 2025 filings, these disclosure failures persist with no bundler attribution or in-kind disclosures related to the documented coordination activities.1
⚖️ The Legal Trap: No Defense Available
The WFP’s 2022 blueprint eliminates any “accidental coordination” defense—they documented successfully coordinating campaigns, proving they understand disclosure requirements. The evidence creates an inescapable trap:
If they claim “no coordination”: They must admit Mamdani’s fundraising appeals for Brannan and Adams violated rules requiring disclosure when someone raises money for campaigns (CFB Rule 4-05(c)(v)) and requiring disclosure of free services or benefits (Rule 1-04(g)).
If they admit coordination occurred: They must admit the undisclosed coordination violated rules requiring disclosure of coordinated expenditures (Rule 1-08(c)) and strategic information sharing (Rules 6-04(a)(ix) and (x)).
Either way, they violated CFB transparency rules designed to inform voters about who’s funding and coordinating campaigns—despite documented expertise proving they knew better.
Act II: Coalition Mutual Aid Activities
The June coordination wasn’t isolated—it was part of a systematic pattern within the WFP coalition that violated disclosure rules repeatedly. The pattern becomes clear when examining how Mamdani leveraged his fundraising success to boost coalition allies while circumventing transparency requirements.
On March 24, 2025, Mamdani announced he had “reached the maximum funding limit for the June primary.” But rather than stepping back, he pivoted to leveraging his massive platform to generate taxpayer-matched donations for coalition allies. The most dramatic example came on May 18, when he posted a video urging supporters to donate to City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams’ campaign—another WFP coalition member.
The timing was surgical: Mamdani’s video, which garnered 830,000 views, was released to coincide with the May 19 campaign finance deadline—critical for Adams to qualify for matching funds after her late entry. The coordination had measurable financial impact: Adams received $117,000 in donations on May 18-19 (30% of her prior two months’ fundraising), with 370 overlapping donors contributing $18,000, and $14,300 qualifying for 8-to-1 public matching funds.
Mamdani explicitly acknowledged the coalition strategy, telling supporters to donate to Adams because all candidates are “running together to defeat Andrew Cuomo.” Yet despite this documented $117,000 surge, Adams’ campaign filings show no bundler attribution to Mamdani—violating the rule requiring campaigns to report when someone else raises money for them (CFB Rule 4-05(c)(v)).1
Strategic Demographics and Coalition Targeting
The coordination was strategically designed around sophisticated demographic targeting to counter Andrew Cuomo’s overwhelming strength among Black voters. The data revealed a stark challenge for the WFP coalition: Cuomo held a commanding 74% support among Black voters in polling, while Mamdani managed only 27%. Additionally, Cuomo was trusted more than Mamdani on crime and safety by 18 points among Black voters—a crucial advantage in a mayoral race.
The coalition’s response was calculated and coordinated. Recognizing this demographic weakness, the WFP strategically positioned Adrienne Adams—a Black candidate—as their third choice in ranked-choice endorsements. Mamdani’s platform-driven fundraising for Adams wasn’t coincidental mutual aid; it was targeted strategy designed to help her qualify for matching funds and appear more viable to Black voters who might otherwise default to Cuomo.
The strategy extended beyond fundraising coordination. Both Adams and fellow candidate State Senator Zellnor Myrie (also Black) actively urged Black voters to support Black candidates rather than Cuomo, creating a coordinated messaging effort designed to chip away at Cuomo’s crucial demographic advantage. Under ranked-choice voting, even modest erosion of Cuomo’s Black voter base could prove decisive for the coalition’s overall strategy.
⚠️ Did This Violate Coordination Rules?
The coordination was strategically designed around sophisticated demographic targeting to counter Andrew Cuomo’s overwhelming strength among Black voters. Both Mamdani and Adams operated within the WFP-endorsed coalition, with coordination facilitated through the Working Families Party and/or its affiliated PACs, shared vendors, and consultants.
The timing was surgical: Mamdani’s May 18 video was released to coincide with the May 19 campaign finance deadline—critical for Adams to qualify for matching funds after her late entry. When Mamdani explicitly told supporters to donate to Adams because all candidates are “running together to defeat Andrew Cuomo,” this revealed coordinated strategy rather than independent mutual aid.
NYC rules prohibit campaigns from coordinating through shared consultants without disclosure (CFB Rule 6-04(a)(ix)). The documented coordination facilitated through the Working Families Party and/or its affiliated PACs, shared vendors, and consultants appears to violate this fundamental independence requirement—despite the WFP’s documented expertise in coordination from their 2022 blueprint.1
🚨 Taxpayer-Funded Coordination Violations
The Adams coordination exposes systematic CFB disclosure violations with direct taxpayer impact. Adams received $117,000 in donations on May 18-19 following Mamdani’s video appeal, with $14,300 qualifying for 8-to-1 public matching funds. This means $14,300 in taxpayer money was generated through undisclosed coordination—exactly what disclosure rules for coordinated expenditures (CFB Rules 1-08(c) and 1-04(g)) are designed to prevent.
Despite this documented $117,000 surge and Mamdani’s explicit acknowledgment that candidates were “running together,” Adams’ campaign filings show no bundler attribution to Mamdani, violating the rule requiring disclosure when someone raises money for campaigns (CFB Rule 4-05(c)(v)). Neither campaign reported in-kind contributions for coordinated activities, violating the rule requiring disclosure of free services or benefits (CFB Rule 1-04(g)).
While elite PACs spent $24,514 supporting Adams through properly reported expenditures, this suggests a dual-track system: visible elite PAC spending properly reported, while coordination between individual campaigns provided additional benefits while systematically violating disclosure requirements.1
Round-Trip Transactions: The Taxpayer Pipeline
The coordination extends beyond individual campaigns to the organizational ecosystem supporting them. On June 11, 2025, Make the Road Action contributed exactly $45,697.14 to WFP National PAC. That same day, WFP National PAC reported an identical $45,697.14 in-kind expenditure back to Make the Road Action for “Phone Bank” services.
For this sequence to be legitimate, WFP would need to process the contribution, determine they needed phone services, negotiate terms, and execute payment—all within hours, for exactly the same amount calculated to the penny. The astronomical improbability of such precision occurring naturally indicates coordination between organizations legally required to operate independently.
One-Sided Disclosure Violation: While WFP National PAC properly reported the $45,697.14 as an in-kind expenditure to Make the Road Action for “Phone Bank” services, Make the Road Action failed to report receiving this payment as an in-kind contribution, violating the rule requiring disclosure of free services or benefits received (CFB Rule 1-04(g)). This one-sided reporting further confirms the coordination while creating an incomplete transparency record.
The Shared Leadership Network: The organizations maintain the legal fiction of independence while operating with extensively shared leadership. Key personnel overlaps include Theo Oshiro serving as Co-Executive Director at Make the Road NY (40 hrs/week, $157,447) and Executive Director at Make the Road Action (10 hrs/week, $8,619), and Daniel Altschuler serving as Director of Politics and Policy at Make the Road NY (40 hrs/week, $134,658) and Co-Executive Director at Make the Road Action (10 hrs/week, $42,704). Lucia Gomez Jimenez is listed as Director of Make the Road Action with prior public affiliations with Make the Road NY, while Joe Dinkin serves as National WFP Deputy Director, creating direct financial relationships within the broader political network.
This extensive personnel overlap explains how organizations legally required to operate independently could coordinate the precise $45,697.14 round-trip transaction. When the same individuals control multiple organizations within the network, “independence” becomes a legal technicality rather than operational reality.
The Taxpayer Pipeline: This specific transaction is part of a larger, systemic pipeline that transforms public funds into political power. Make the Road Action is the 501(c)(4) political arm of Make the Road New York, a nonprofit that has received over $27 million in NYC taxpayer funds since 2010. Make the Road New York transferred $165,000 to Make the Road Action in 2023, which then contributed to WFP National PAC, which provided political support for Mamdani.
The Network Connections: Both organizations are part of the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) network—a major Open Society Foundations grantee. This creates a clear money trail: NYC taxpayers fund Make the Road NY (501c3), which connects to Make the Road Action (501c4), which contributed to WFP National PAC, which provided political support for Mamdani. According to OSF’s public grant database, the foundation has provided direct support to CPD, which coordinates affiliated groups including both Make the Road organizations.
The scale of this network is substantial. Since January 2020, Soros’ contributions to political campaigns and causes total roughly half a billion dollars, with OSF publicly announcing a $20 million pledge that specifically names Working Families Party as a core partner. The June 11 round-trip transaction illustrates how organizations within this ecosystem operate in close financial coordination, raising questions about how a “working-class revolution” operates within a half-billion-dollar progressive infrastructure network coordinated by one of America’s wealthiest individuals.
Act III: CFB Oversight and Institutional Relationships
Perhaps most troubling are documented institutional relationships within the very agency tasked with enforcing campaign finance rules. A New York Post investigation by Jason Curtis Anderson revealed multiple connections between Campaign Finance Board personnel and the WFP coalition that raise serious questions about whether oversight was compromised during the 2025 primary.
🔍 Documented CFB-WFP Institutional Connections
David Duhalde – CFB Senior Candidate Services Liaison: According to the Post investigation, David Duhalde serves as a “senior candidate services liaison” for the NYC Campaign Finance Board with “access to sensitive information about anyone running for office.” The Post documented that Duhalde is “a lead DSA member going all in on electing Mamdani.” The Post reports that Duhalde’s CFB role gives him access to “sensitive details about any candidate for mayor, including compliance records and strategic data” and that “he can, in theory, selectively influence how strictly rules are enforced.”
Lawrence “Larry” Moskowitz – CFB Board Member: Additionally, Lawrence “Larry” Moskowitz serves on the CFB Board through November 30, 2025, and is documented as a founding staff member of the Working Families Party and its former National Labor Director who helped build the WFP from its inception and served in leadership roles for over 15 years.
The documented relationships appear both direct and institutional. A 2022 tweet from Mamdani states, “Duhalde’s sending you a dm,” indicating personal communication between the CFB employee and a candidate he would oversee, according to the Post investigation. Simultaneously, the presence of a WFP founding member on the CFB Board during the period when WFP coalition coordination activities were occurring raises questions about institutional conflicts of interest that may have affected oversight decisions.
đź“Š Treatment Patterns During Period of Institutional Connections
The Post documented concerning enforcement patterns during the period when these institutional connections existed:
- Mamdani (coalition leader): “received millions in matching funds from the board, more than any other candidate”
- Cuomo (coalition target): “denied the erstwhile frontrunner $1.3 million in matching funds”
- Coalition coordination: Over $2 million in elite PAC spending while apparent coordination violations were not subject to enforcement action
- Timing: CFB decisions occurred while documented institutional connections existed between CFB personnel and WFP coalition
Expert Concerns About Institutional Integrity
Mitchell Silber, a former NYPD counterterrorism official and Community Security Initiative executive director, told the Post: “Any ties — direct or indirect — to organizations sanctioned for supporting terrorism should be taken seriously, especially when public trust is involved. While everyone has the right to personal affiliations, government agencies must uphold the highest standards of vetting to ensure those connected to extremist groups are not in positions of influence or public service.”
The Post investigation documented additional concerning affiliations, including Duhalde’s past role as DSA Fund chair aimed at building “a cross-state network of radical elected officials” and documented involvement with organizations that raise questions about institutional integrity within the oversight agency.
Questions About CFB Response Patterns
The documented institutional connections raise questions about differential treatment patterns. When former Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey —acting on our bundling investigation of the finances of Mamdani’s campaign—contacted the CFB directly about bundling irregularities for her New York Post op-ed, the CFB declined to comment. Yet when Politico published a piece defending the campaign, it claimed that campaign spokesperson Andrew Epstein had provided “an email” from a CFB staffer confirming the campaign’s explanations—email documentation that was never published or made available for verification.
This raises questions: why would the CFB decline to comment to legitimate media inquiries while allegedly providing email documentation to campaigns they’re supposed to oversee impartially? The pattern suggests potential institutional coordination that may extend to the coordination violations documented in this investigation.
Even more suspicious, the CFB made quiet changes to their website after investigative reporting exposed red flags about bundler attributions in coalition campaigns. These website modifications, occurring after public scrutiny of CFB oversight practices, raise additional questions about whether the institution was responding to pressure to minimize apparent oversight failures rather than addressing underlying compliance issues.
⚖️ Process Questions That Demand Investigation
The significance of these institutional relationships lies not in proving direct causation, but in the appearance of potential conflicts during a period when apparent coordination violations were occurring without enforcement action:
Were proper recusal procedures followed? Did CFB personnel with documented WFP connections recuse themselves from coalition oversight decisions during the period when apparent coordination violations were occurring?
Did institutional connections influence guidance provided? Were coalition campaigns provided favorable treatment or guidance that enabled apparent coordination violations documented in this investigation?
Was oversight independence compromised? Did the presence of multiple CFB personnel with documented connections to the WFP coalition compromise campaign finance oversight of the very coordination violations documented in this investigation?
Act IV: Campaign Responses and Financial Documentation
When confronted with evidence of coordination patterns, coalition representatives offered responses that may actually confirm the systematic rule violations documented in this investigation. Our social media post documenting the coordination timeline drew a response from Victoria Perrone, who serves as Mamdani’s campaign treasurer.
This response raises important questions given the institutional connections documented in this investigation. Perrone’s claim that they “ask the @NYCCFB all the time and they tell us what we are allowed to do” takes on additional significance when considered alongside the documented relationships between CFB personnel and the WFP coalition. Her additional statement that “We filed correctly with the CFB and they screwed up” suggests the campaign may have received favorable treatment or guidance from the oversight agency that enabled apparent coordination violations.
The institutional coordination questions become more serious when considered alongside the documented CFB response patterns detailed in Act III above. This raises questions: were the documented institutional connections between CFB personnel and the WFP coalition a factor in differential treatment? Was guidance or documentation provided to coalition campaigns that was not available to legitimate oversight inquiries?
More tellingly, Perrone completely avoids addressing the central evidence—the suspicious timing of Mamdani’s June 9 fundraising appeal for Brannan before poll results became public. Instead, she deflects to an entirely different activity that wasn’t part of this investigation. This deflection pattern suggests the coalition cannot directly address the documented coordination timeline or explain the systematic disclosure failures.
🎠Response Pattern Confirms Legal Trap
What the campaign treasurer’s response doesn’t address confirms the inescapable rule violations: The response completely avoids the core timing evidence while deflecting to unrelated activities. This pattern confirms they cannot explain the documented coordination timeline under either legal scenario—whether claiming independence (which creates intermediary violations) or admitting coordination (which creates disclosure violations). The systematic contrast between “grassroots” messaging and over $2 million in elite PAC support remains unaddressed, further confirming the systematic nature of apparent rule violations documented in this investigation. Given the WFP’s documented coordination expertise from their 2022 blueprint, the deflection appears particularly telling.
The investigation also documented that coalition campaigns “spent $6.3 MILLION on corporate vendors—including $88K to AEG Presents (BeyoncĂ©’s tour company)”—professional infrastructure that contradicts their “volunteer-driven” messaging while operating within an elite-funded framework. This raises additional questions about transparency and messaging consistency throughout the operation, as detailed in previous investigations.
The Complete Elite Funding Architecture
The electoral outcomes provide the final piece of evidence about the coalition’s systematic approach. Mamdani’s decisive victory, combined with coordinated opposition spending that helped ensure Cuomo’s defeat, demonstrates the effectiveness of the strategy while raising serious questions about whether voters understood the true coordination driving their choices.
đź’° The Full Elite Funding Operation
The complete financial picture exposes the scale of elite coordination:
- WFP National PAC: $701,792 total ($60,955 supporting Mamdani, $539,616 opposing Cuomo)
- “New Yorkers for Lower Costs” PAC: $1,320,446 total ($893,877 supporting Mamdani)
- Combined Elite PAC Spending: $2,022,238
- Mamdani’s Direct Contributions: $1,708,494
- Elite spending exceeded direct contributions by 18.4%
- Undisclosed coordination benefits: Hundreds of thousands in additional fundraising and matching funds
Previous reporting documented the elite funding sources: Silicon Valley billionaires like Ronald Conway ($300,000), Hollywood celebrities like Steven Spielberg, tech entrepreneurs like Tom Preston-Werner (GitHub co-founder), and 71.5% out-of-state funding despite “New Yorkers for Lower Costs” branding. The WFP’s strategic endorsements created the framework within which the documented coordination violations occurred.
This reveals the complete picture: mutual fundraising activities between Mamdani, Adams, and Brannan were components of an elite-funded coalition strategy designed to maximize progressive victories while concealing the true coordination from voters—activities that appear to violate multiple CFB disclosure requirements under both independence and coordination scenarios while systematically deceiving voters about the grassroots nature of their operations.
🎯 Systematic Deception About Funding Sources
The documented patterns suggest systematic rule violations designed to deceive voters: When Mamdani “maxed out” and shifted to helping Adams qualify for matching funds, and when he fundraised for Brannan before beneficial poll results became public, these activities appear to violate multiple disclosure rules: coordination through shared consultants (CFB Rule 6-04(a)(ix)), coordinated expenditures (Rule 1-08(c)), and in-kind contributions (Rule 1-04(g)) by failing to disclose coordination that provided material benefits.
The WFP’s documented coordination expertise from their 2022 blueprint makes these disclosure failures appear particularly deliberate.1
The coalition’s electoral success validates their strategy’s effectiveness while confirming the systematic nature of apparent rule violations. Mamdani’s victory, achieved through what appears to be coordination violations and elite funding disguised as grassroots support, demonstrates how CFB disclosure requirements can be systematically circumvented to deceive voters about the true sources of political power—creating the exact transparency failures the legal trap identified.
Questions for Further Examination
The documented evidence presents compelling patterns that suggest systematic violations of NYC’s campaign finance disclosure rules designed to ensure voter transparency about coordination and funding sources.
🔍 Critical Questions That Demand Investigation:
Were CFB Coordination Rules Violated? Did the strategic timing of Brannan’s poll and Mamdani’s fundraising appeal, coupled with the poll’s methodology favoring coalition outcomes, constitute coordinated expenditures that should have been reported as in-kind contributions under rules requiring disclosure of coordinated expenditures (CFB Rules 1-08(c) and 1-04(g))?
Were Strategic Information Sharing Rules Violated? Did Mamdani’s fundraising appeal for Brannan before poll results were public violate rules against sharing non-public strategic information (CFB Rule 6-04(a)(x)) and coordination through shared consultants (Rule 6-04(a)(ix)) facilitated through the Working Families Party and/or its affiliated PACs, shared vendors, and consultants?
Were Intermediary Disclosure Rules Violated? Should Mamdani’s fundraising efforts for Adams, which generated $117,000 and helped her qualify for matching funds, have been disclosed under rules requiring disclosure when someone raises money for campaigns (CFB Rule 4-05(c)(v)) and reported as in-kind contributions (Rules 1-08(c) and 1-04(g))?
Was There a Pattern of Systematic Violations? Do the repeated instances of undisclosed mutual aid between elite-funded coalition candidates suggest coordinated violations of CFB disclosure requirements under rules governing coordinated expenditures (Rules 1-08(c), 1-04(g)), bundler disclosure (4-05(c)(v)), and coordination factors (Rule 6-04(a))?
Were CFB Institutional Relationships a Factor in Oversight? Did the documented relationships between CFB personnel and the WFP coalition—including a founding WFP member serving on the CFB Board and a CFB employee with documented support for coalition candidates—compromise oversight of campaign finance rules? Were any guidance or enforcement decisions influenced by these institutional connections during the period when apparent coordination violations were occurring?
Were Voters Systematically Deceived? Did the combination of over $2 million in elite PAC spending with undisclosed coordination between individual campaigns violate the fundamental transparency requirements designed to ensure voters understand who is actually funding and coordinating their electoral choices?
The documented evidence demonstrates that New York City’s 2025 Democratic primary featured systematic violations of campaign finance disclosure rules designed to ensure electoral transparency. The elite-funded coalition operation—combining Silicon Valley billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and out-of-state tech entrepreneurs with apparent coordination violations between individual campaigns—appears to have systematically circumvented CFB rules governing coordination disclosure, intermediary reporting, and in-kind contribution requirements.
While the coalition promoted messages about grassroots authenticity and rejecting elite influence, the documented evidence demonstrates they operated the most sophisticated elite-funded coordination system in NYC history while systematically violating disclosure requirements designed to ensure voters understand the true sources of political power driving their electoral choices.
The legal trap documented in this investigation demonstrates that systematic violations of campaign finance rules were used to deceive voters about the true coordination and elite funding sources driving the 2025 NYC Democratic primary, creating an inescapable framework of apparent rule violations that demands immediate investigation and accountability.
1 Analysis based on NYC Campaign Finance Board Rules, effective December 19, 2024. Complete CFB Rules document available here.
📧 For daily updates, follow @SamAntar on X (formerly Twitter)
Written by Sam Antar
Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.