
New York mayoral frontrunner Mamdani leaves business leaders divided on opposition strategy
Following Cuomo's announcement that he would stay in the race as an independent after losing to Mamdani, New York-based CEOs have yet to coalesce behind either the former governor or incumbent Adams in their bid to defeat Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who won the primary in June.
Several business leaders who would only speak under the condition of anonymity said they would support Cuomo, while others were backing Adams, a former police captain who was elected mayor as a Democrat in 2021 but this year decided to run as an independent, as less sure of the former governor's chances. Many leaders are taking a wait-and-see approach -- though others believe that could be a bad move, keeping another candidate from gaining momentum.
Mamdani won the June 24 primary with 56% of the vote, bolstered by young voters drawn to his social media presence and messaging focused on solving the city's affordability crisis. Polling suggests he would prevail over a fractured field of Cuomo, Adams and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, but some polls suggest Cuomo would win a head-to-head matchup against Mamdani in heavily Democratic New York.
Business owners are concerned that Mamdani's proposals, which include rent freezes, free city buses and city-owned grocery stores, would add to residents' tax burden and cause an exodus of capital.
Mamdani says his plans, which also include free childcare, would be paid for by raising corporate taxes and imposing an additional 2% income tax on New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year.
'I can only vote for one candidate in November, and that decision won't be made until closer to Election Day,' said Jared Epstein, president of real-estate owner and developer Aurora Capital Associates, in an email. 'Until then, like nearly every one of the 20,000 contacts in my phone, my position is simple: ABZ – 'Anyone But Zohran.'"
Mamdani has raised about $820,000 since the primary through July 21, according to the city's campaign finance board. Few prominent business leaders have publicly come out in support of Mamdani, who has received endorsements from unions that previously backed Cuomo. In recent days, Mamdani met with executives in a meeting organized by the nonprofit Partnership for New York City.
"He did a pretty good job of making the case that he was open to conversations, discussion and learning, and that he wanted to build a coalition that would represent all New Yorkers," said Kathy Wylde, president and chief executive officer of the group.
Cuomo has said he would drop out by September if he isn't the clear favorite and has urged others to do the same, though by state law his name would remain on the ballot. He has raised just $64,000 since June 10.
Adams has raised roughly $1.5 million since June 10. Maria and Kenneth Fishel, who own luxury real estate company Renaissance Properties, hosted a fundraiser for Adams in Long Island's Hamptons over the 4th of July weekend. Adams has also received support on social media from hedge-fund managers Bill Ackman and Daniel Loeb. He has been endorsed by 13 police unions.
Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, who ran in this year's Democratic mayoral primary, receiving just 0.8% of the vote, said in an email that once the election is one month away, "it will hopefully be clear who's better positioned to beat Mamdani and ONLY THEN should the other guy drop."
Neither Cuomo nor Mamdani's campaigns responded to a request for comment.
Todd Shapiro, spokesperson for Adams, said Adams made New York stronger after the pandemic and will continue to deliver results for the business community in New York.
Sliwa, who is polling behind both Mamdani and Cuomo, said he is not planning on dropping out; Sliwa, as the Republican candidate in the 2021 mayoral general election won 27.8% of the vote.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
US defense bill proposes examination of Apple display supplier
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A measure added into a massive U.S. defense spending bill in recent weeks will, if passed, ask the Pentagon to determine whether one of Apple's (AAPL.O), opens new tab display suppliers should be listed as a Chinese military company. Being on the list does not block companies from doing business in the U.S. but will in coming years block them from being part of the U.S. military's supply chain. The bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, was approved in July by key committees in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The final bill, considered a "must-pass" because it funds the U.S. military, is expected to become law later in the year. When the bill was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, a newly added amendment for the first time asked the U.S. Defense Department to consider, opens new tab whether BOE Technology Group Co , listed on Apple's official suppliers list, should be added to a list of firms that allegedly aid China's military. BOE and Apple did not respond to requests for comment. Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think-tank, said Beijing had offered billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and loans to help firms such as BOE dominate global panel production. "This creates a single‑source vulnerability that could be easily exploited to disrupt or degrade U.S. military operations, not to mention undermine commercial supply chains, during a conflict or period of heightened bilateral tension with Beijing," Singleton added. A study published last month by New York-based NERA Economic Consulting and commissioned by BOE's U.S. subsidiary found that the display industry, which includes major Korean players such as Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, remains highly competitive, with no single player capable of significantly affecting global prices. "There is no credible risk of a supply chain disruption by mainland China display manufacturers," the report said.


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps. The university has said that it's committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. ___ Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Binkley from Washington.


Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Tesla ordered to pay $243m over Autopilot deaths
Tesla has been ordered to pay $243m (£183m) in compensation after a jury ruled that its Autopilot technology was partly to blame for a fatal crash involving one of its cars. A Miami jury on Friday held that Elon Musk's company bore significant responsibility for the death of a young woman and serious injuries to her boyfriend because its technology had failed. They assigned blame even though a reckless driver of a Tesla Model S admitted he was distracted after dropping his mobile phone. He rammed into the couple, Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo, who were standing next to their parked Chevrolet. 22-year-old Ms Benavides Leon died following the crash. Tesla has now been ordered to pay $43m in compensatory damages and $200m in punitive damages to Mr Angulo and the family of Ms Benavides Leon. The verdict is the latest setback for Mr Musk, who is under mounting pressure as a result of falling sales and share price at Tesla. The billionaire's ill-fated alliance with Donald Trump has done significant damage to the electric car company's brand image and critics say Mr Musk has lost his focus. Autopilot is a driver-assistance system that Tesla says is intended to reduce a driver's 'overall workload'. However, it has faced repeated investigations in the US over its safety record and has not been cleared for use on British roads. Dan O'Dowd, a road safety campaigner who has long questioned Tesla's technology, said: 'Today's ruling is a heavy blow to Elon Musk and Tesla.' The Miami decision ends a four-year long case that was remarkable not just in its outcome but in the fact it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. The trial itself was contentious. Lawyers acting for the victims claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. The plaintiffs hired a forensic data expert who dug it up key evidence. Presented with the findings, Tesla said it made a mistake and claimed the failure to present the evidence was an honest mistake. A Tesla spokesman said: 'Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. 'We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.'