Cuomo claims he's hit $8M cap for NYC mayoral primary, but matching funds could be at risk
Andrew Cuomo's mayoral campaign said Friday the ex-governor has raked in enough donations to surpass the $8 million fundraising cap — but that math hinges on an anticipated disbursement of public matching funds that could be in jeopardy due to legal concerns related to a pro-Cuomo super PAC.
According to a statement from Cuomo's campaign, he received $2.4 million in donations during the latest reporting period, spanning between March 14 and May 19. His detailed filing for the period, due Friday, wasn't immediately available, but that haul would mean Cuomo has raised a total of $3.9 million in private cash since his Feb. 28 mayoral campaign launch.
Bill Mulrow, Cuomo's campaign chairman, said the private haul is enough for Cuomo to qualify for a $2.8 million public matching funds payout at next week's disbursement, adding to the $1.5 million he netted on May 12. Such an influx of public cash would push Cuomo's total war chest to $8.2 million, more than enough to get to the max $7.9 million mayoral candidates can spend on a primary campaign.
'We are truly overwhelmed by the outpouring of support,' Mulrow said.
There is a potential obstacle to Cuomo's cash rally, though.
On May 12, the city Campaign Finance Board withheld more than $620,000 in matching funds from Cuomo because Fix the City, a pro-Cuomo super PAC, had spent that amount of money on airing a television ad the CFB's members said they had 'reason to believe' was the product of illegal coordination between the PAC and Cuomo's campaign. By law, super PACs can raise and spend as much money as they want to boost a political campaign as long as they don't engage in any coordination with the candidate.
Shortly after that finding, Fix the City spent another $675,000 on the same ad, raising the possibility the board could withhold more matching cash from Cuomo in the future.
At the May 12 board meeting, CFB member Richard Davis said the ad amounted to an improper in-kind contribution to Cuomo and that it thereby would deduct whatever was spent on it from the matching funds the ex-gov qualifies for. 'The board's investigation into this matter is ongoing, and we will continue to evaluate the issue of improper coordination,' Davis added.
Cuomo's campaign maintains the ad wasn't the product of illegal super PAC coordination and has said it will challenge the CFB's ruling.
A CFB spokesman declined to comment Friday.
The matching funds program is a big boon to mayoral candidates, as it matches any donations they get from city residents with taxpayer cash up to $250 at an 8:1 ratio.
Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 as he faced impeachment over sexual misconduct accusations he denies, continues to poll as the clear favorite to win the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary, and a sizable campaign war chest will help him continue to air ads and otherwise get his message out. Fix the City, which is operated by a group of longtime Cuomo allies, has already raised another $9 million and spent nearly $5 million of it on Cuomo-boosting ads.
Several other mayoral candidates say they have also reached the fundraising cap.
Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who has consistently polled as the runner-up to Cuomo, suspended fundraising in late March after becoming the first mayoral candidate to reach the spending cap.
Earlier this week, City Comptroller Brad Lander announced he had also reached the spending cap with anticipated public matching funds factored in.
Full fundraising filings for the latest stretch were due from all mayoral primary candidates Friday, though none had been released as of early afternoon.
A key question heading into Friday's filing was whether City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams' mayoral campaign will have raised enough money from enough individual donors to qualify for matching funds. Earlier this week, the speaker's team said she had, but the Daily News also reported this month that her matching funds claims have been marred by a high rate of errors that could pose an issue for eligibility.
If mayoral primary candidates don't qualify for matching funds in this stretch, they won't get another shot at getting them until June 20, just four days before the primary election.
A fundraising filing was also due Friday from Mayor Adams, who isn't running in the primary, as he dropped out of it last month amid fallout from the controversial dismissal of his corruption indictment. Adams is instead seeking reelection in November's general election as an independent candidate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia launches one of war's largest air attacks days after Ukraine's bomber raid
Russia launched a barrage of drones and ballistic missiles across broad swaths of Ukraine early Friday, killing at least six people and injuring dozens of others, days after Kyiv launched a daring raid on Moscow's fleet of strategic bombers. For residents of Kyiv, the night's soundtrack was familiar: the shrieking whir of drones, air raid sirens and large explosions overhead – whether from air defenses successfully downing missiles, or projectiles puncturing the capital. Three firefighters were killed in Kyiv, two civilians were killed in Lutsk, and another person was killed in Chernihiv, according to the Ukrainian State Emergency Service. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia had used more than 400 drones and 40 missiles in the overnight attack, putting it among the war's largest. He said Moscow's attack injured 80 and targeted 'almost all' of Ukraine, listing nine regions, from Lviv in the west to Sumy in the northeast. Although Russia has pummeled Ukraine almost daily over three years of full-scale war, Ukrainians had been bracing for retaliation since Sunday, when Kyiv launched an audacious operation that struck more than a third of Russia's strategic cruise missile carriers. In a call with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow would have to respond to Kyiv's assault. Speaking aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump told reporters Ukraine 'gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night.' Russia's Ministry of Defense said its strikes were in response to what it called Kyiv's 'terrorist acts.' It was not immediately clear if the attack was the extent of Russia's pledged retaliation, or if Putin intends to escalate further. After the embarrassment of Kyiv's operation, there was a chorus of bellicose calls from pro-Kremlin pundits for a severe – potentially nuclear – response. Although Ukrainians had been buoyed last weekend by the news of Kyiv's successful operation, many were wary of how Russia might strike back. But after Friday's strikes, Kyiv residents told CNN they supported Ukraine's strikes against the aircraft Moscow has used to bomb Ukraine for more than three years. 'It didn't break us at all. The morale is as high as it was. We strongly believe in our armed forces,' said Olha, a 39-year-old from the capital who did not wish to give her last name. She said the apparent 'retaliation' from Russia was not so different to countless other nights of the war. 'Maybe (this was the retaliation), but maybe the retaliation is yet to come. Either way, it doesn't change our attitude towards the enemy or towards our country.' Meanwhile, Ukraine's general staff on Friday said it launched overnight strikes on two Russian airfields, where it said Moscow had concentrated many of the aircraft that had not been damaged in Kyiv's 'Spiderweb' operation last weekend. Ukraine stressed that the operation, which blindsided the Kremlin, had targeted the planes that Russia uses to launch missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and kill civilians. After Russia's large-scale attack Friday, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Moscow had 'responded' to its destroyed aircraft by once again 'attacking civilians in Ukraine.' As daylight broke, images from Kyiv showed flames rising over apartment buildings and firefighting crews at work, with residents picking through the debris of damaged apartments. Several cars parked in the streets below were covered with shards of glass and slabs of masonry torn from the walls of residential buildings. Ukraine's air force said Russia's barrage comprised 407 drones, six ballistic missiles, 38 cruise missiles and an anti-radar missile. Of those 452 projectiles, the air force said it had downed 406, including 32 of the cruise missiles and four of the ballistic missiles. The other two ballistic missiles did not reach their targets, it added. The strikes also hit Chernihiv, near the border with Belarus, which was rocked by 14 explosions from drones and ballistic missiles, including cruise missiles and Iskander-M missiles, local officials said. Five others were wounded in strikes in the northwestern city of Lutsk, near the border with Poland. Footage geolocated by CNN showed at least four missiles slamming into the city, kicking up fiery explosions on impact. The Russian Ministry of Defense said it had also intercepted and destroyed 174 Ukrainian drones from Thursday evening to early Friday morning and had destroyed three Ukrainian Neptune-MD guided missiles over the Black Sea. All week, Ukrainians have been bracing for Russia's retaliation to last weekend's drone attack, which struck 34% of Moscow's nuclear-capable bombers stationed at airfields as far away as Siberia. On Tuesday, Ukraine also launched an attack on the Kerch Bridge, the only direct connection point between Russia and the annexed Crimean Peninsula, with 1,100 kilograms of explosives that had been planted underwater. After Trump's call with Putin on Wednesday, the US president said his Russian counterpart had told him that Moscow would have to respond to Ukraine's assaults. Trump's account of the call gave no indication that he had urged Putin to temper his response, to the dismay of many in Ukraine. 'When Putin mentioned he is going to avenge or deliver a new strike against Ukraine, we know what it means. It's about civilians,' Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko told CNN earlier this week. 'And President Trump didn't say, 'Vladimir, stop.'' Despite Trump's support for recent peace talks in Istanbul between Ukraine and Russia, on Thursday he signaled that he may be adopting a more hands-off approach, likening the war to a brawl between children. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump said in the Oval Office, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looked on silently. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.'
