Speaker Adrienne Adams raises $128,000 for NYC mayoral bid in 5 days
Nearly 1,130 donors, including 875 donors in New York City, gave to her campaign in just five days, according to the campaign.
The speaker said at a press conference Wednesday that she didn't expect to meet the threshold for the city's 8-to-1 matching program, which requires candidates to reach $250,000 in matchable donations from 1,000 local donors.
'We have been aggressive fundraising for less than a week, so put that together as far as what we're doing on how we're working,' Adams said at a press conference. 'But we do expect to receive matching funds in time.'
The next matching funds payout, though, is not until late May — a potential hurdle for her campaign as she vies against candidates who have been fundraising for months and have already qualified for the matching funds.
The speaker, once considered an ally to Mayor Adams, launched her campaign against him earlier this month. She entered the race on the heels of ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Adams filed paperwork to open a campaign account in late February, but that account couldn't accept donations until March 6, according to Lupe Todd-Media, her campaign spokesperson.
The campaign is aiming to employ a 'rose garden strategy' — emphasizing her accomplishments as leader of the City Council — to boost her candidacy, according to a campaign memo shared with the Daily News.
'As Speaker, she will continue to deliver real results while others are stuck campaigning,' the campaign memo reads, listing off her opposition to budget cuts, support for 3-K and CityFHEPS vouchers and work passing 'City of Yes.'

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


New York Post
35 minutes ago
- New York Post
Sliwa: ‘I'll let voters decide if NYC should be a sanctuary city' if elected mayor
Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa will have voters decide whether the Big Apple should remain a sanctuary city if he's elected mayor. 'I'll put the issue where it belongs – in the hands of New Yorkers,' the Guardian Angels founder told The Post about the city's controversial designation that helps criminal migrants avoid deportation. Former Mayor de Blasio and his left-wing comrades on the City Council pushed through a series of policies in 2014 and 2018 that help criminal migrants avoid deportation by severely limiting the NYPD's and city Correction and Probation departments' ability to cooperate with the feds. Mayor Adams last week insisted he can't issue an executive order to roll back the law because he'd likely be overridden by state pols – even as the Trump administration amped up pressure with a new lawsuit targeting the pro-criminal migrant policies. 3 Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa is vowing have voters decide whether the Big Apple should remain a sanctuary city if he wins November's general election. Bruce Cotler/ZUMA / However, Adams has refused to direct two separate Charter Revision Commissions he appointed to put a referendum question on the ballot to determine whether the city should repeal or roll back the sanctuary policies or keep them as is. 'Eric Adams talks a big game . . . but twice he had the chance to let New Yorkers decide on sanctuary city laws through the ballot, and twice he refused. As mayor, I will convene a Charter Revision Commission and put real issues like sanctuary city laws and whether Rikers should be closed before the people.' 3 A migrant is detained by federal immigration officers last week at U.S. immigration court in Manhattan. REUTERS Sliwa is ranked either third or fourth in most recent mayoral polls, behind Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Adams and Cuomo, both Dems, are running as independents because Mamdani is the Democratic nominee. 3 Adams has refused to direct two separate Charter Revision Commissions he appointed to put a referendum question on the ballot to determine whether to repeal or roll back the sanctuary policies or keep them as is. Michael Nigro Adams' campaign didn't return messages.

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Watertown's legal bills for Olney ethics case exceed $100,000
Aug. 1—WATERTOWN — The city has wracked up almost $118,000 in legal bills for the ethics investigation into City Councilman Cliff G. Olney. Since then-Mayor Jeffrey M. Smith filed his complaint in September 2023, the city has paid three law firms a total of $117,975 in the case, without coming to a conclusion whether Olney violated city ethics. With the cost exceeding six figures, the legal expenses could keep mounting — depending on whether the City Council proceeds with the complaint on Monday. Council members might decide Monday night whether to schedule a hearing date to determine Olney's fate. It's been estimated that the attorney fees could increase another $20,000 or more if they move forward with it. On Friday, council members expressed shock after hearing how much has been spent on lawyers. Councilman Benjamin P. Shoen was so shocked that he initially didn't know how to react. "That's a lot of money to get nowhere," Shoen said. "I hate it was a waste of money. To me, if we had gotten somewhere with it, that would be OK, but we got nowhere." After hearing about the cost, Lisa A. Ruggiero was equally shocked, blaming Smith for making the accusations against Olney solely for political reasons "to make him look bad." "It's outrageous," she said. "I just think it needs to stop. It's gotten us nowhere." Ruggiero and Shoen both said the money could have been used to decrease the property tax rate or for other purposes, such as hiring two public works employees — but it was wasted instead. Councilman Robert O. Kimball wants to move forward with holding a hearing on the ethics complaint, stressing that council has an obligation "to see it through to a conclusion." Despite spending more money, council needs to know whether one of its members violated the city's ethics and "how bad" they were violated, Kimball said. However, some members of the public will believe that it's a waste of taxpayers' money to proceed, he said. Some are going to say we're "throwing good money after bad," Kimball acknowledged. The Watertown Daily Times filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the city for the legal bills from three law firms that have been involved in the matter. The invoices from the three law firms were heavily redacted, but The Times has determined that the city paid $117,975 in legal bills for work on the ethics investigation. The Syracuse law firm that handles the city's legal matters accumulated the brunt of the legal bills. City attorney Bond, Schoeneck & King charged the city $80,166 for its handling of the ethics complaint. Those bills covered legal work until Nov. 6, 2024. Last year, however, the law firm recused itself from being involved in the complaint. With that law firm recusing itself, the city retained another Syracuse firm, Hancock Estabrook, to take over the work of the ethics complaint. They have submitted bills totaling $18,900 as of April 14. The city's former attorney, the Rochester law firm of Harris Beach PLLC, billed the city $18,949 for its part in starting the ethics investigation. Calling it "a stunning escalation of a politically motivated ethics complaint," Olney strongly criticized a proposed resolution on Monday night's agenda that would allow waiving attorney-client privilege to allow former city attorneys to testify against him in an ethics hearing — just months before the councilman is seeking reelection. It would mean paying yet another law firm to act as the prosecutor in the hearing, Olney said. The original ethics complaint, filed on Sept. 11, 2023, was drafted privately with the assistance of Harris Beach attorney H. Todd Bullard, using city legal resources without any formal authorization from the City Council. For nearly two years, the matter mostly sat dormant — until now, Olney said. "This is nothing short of election interference using public dollars," Olney said. "But now they want to selectively waive privilege — only where it might damage my reputation — to breathe life into a complaint that should never have existed in the first place." He repeated his criticism that the city has refused to provide him and the local press with unredacted legal bill records that would show the exact charges by the law firms. Just about all of the 46 pages of billing records were redacted. Some contained names of attorneys and clerks, how many hours that they worked on the city matters and the hourly rates that were charged to the city. Out of 36 pages that Bond, Schoeneck & King filed, 24 contained large black boxes that blacked out "descriptions" of what kind of legal work that they did for the city. Olney is calling for the release of all unredacted invoices from Harris Beach related to the ethics matter. He also wants a formal investigation into how the ethics complaint was prepared and funded. As for what happens at Monday night's meeting, Shoen doesn't know what council will decide, expecting Olney and Ruggiero to oppose moving forward with the complaint, while Kimball and Mayor Sarah V.C. Pierce will support proceeding with it. Agreeing with Kimball that the matter should proceed to its conclusion, Pierce said Friday that she hopes it can be determined that the ethics hearing could move forward without the involvement of an attorney. She wants to find out whether council members can hold the hearing themselves, so that the city won't "incur" additional legal expenses. Olney might be told that he must recuse himself from the vote, citing a conflict of interest since the matter involves him. If that happens, it could end up a 2-2 vote and it will be defeated. Thus putting an end to the legal bills, Olney said. Solve the daily Crossword

Wall Street Journal
15 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Democrats Against a Higher Minimum Wage
File this under the category of progressives mugged by reality: On Monday the District of Columbia's City Council voted to slow a rising minimum wage for tipped workers, which has ravaged restaurants. To adapt an old adage for a young Washington clientele, there's no such thing as a free brunch. Tipped workers, including restaurant servers, are often paid at a special lower hourly wage, but then they earn much higher take-home pay. D.C. voters passed a ballot initiative in 2022 to raise the tipped minimum wage (then $5.35) to match the city's ordinary wage floor (now $17.95) by 2027. At this point, the tipped wage mandate has already nearly doubled to $10.