A Manufactured Movement? Sam Antar Dissects the Illusion of Grassroots Support Behind NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani

By: Russ Spencer

In an era where political campaigns are increasingly curated for screens rather than streets, a scathing new analysis by acclaimed forensic accountant Sam Antar is raising uncomfortable questions about the public image and financial underpinnings of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.

In a recent interview with Newsmax, Antar—best known for exposing financial irregularities in the white-collar sector—unloaded on Mamdani’s campaign, branding the Democratic Socialist contender as a “lab rat candidate… engineered in the lab, made for television but gets no grassroots results.” His critique was not mere rhetoric. It came backed by a meticulous breakdown of public campaign finance filings, which, as Antar contends, paint a damning picture of a campaign more reliant on polished branding and bundled money than any authentic populist groundswell.

Antar’s forensic readout of Mamdani’s numbers, first spotlighted during the interview and later circulated on political forums and media outlets, reveals an operation that, despite its rhetorical appeal to working-class revolution and systemic change, is almost entirely underwritten by establishment machinery.

The most arresting figure in Antar’s audit is this: $0.00 in organic donations.

Out of 27,674 itemized contributions to Mamdani’s campaign, only 77 were not attributed to political bundlers. And according to Antar, those 77 entries collectively totaled zero dollars—likely representing accounting reversals, refunds, or other non-contributory line items.

“All $1.7 million raised by Mamdani came through political bundlers,” Antar told Newsmax. “That’s not a grassroots campaign—that’s a branded political product marketed to the public using influencers, algorithms, and outside money.”

Bundlers, often seasoned operatives or political intermediaries, group together donations from various individuals to give candidates access to major funding without exceeding individual legal limits. While legal and widely used, their heavy involvement often contradicts a campaign’s claim to be driven by small-dollar, community-based supporters.

Antar’s conclusion: Mamdani’s campaign is a “top-down donor vehicle with a bottom-up aesthetic.”

The campaign’s financial architecture, Antar argues, gets even more revealing when outside spending is factored in. According to filings reviewed by the accountant, allied political action committees (PACs) have poured $1.9 million into the race on Mamdani’s behalf—surpassing even the candidate’s own official fundraising totals.

That brings the total establishment-aligned support to $3.6 million, split between campaign coffers and PAC dollars—an astonishing figure for a candidate who has made political hay out of attacking wealthy donors, real estate developers, and what he calls “the political consultant class.”

“Mamdani rails against elite influence, yet benefits from it more than nearly any other candidate in this cycle,” Antar said. “It’s a paradox that becomes clear only once you look past the Instagram posts and campaign slogans and look at the math. And math doesn’t lie. Campaigns do.”

Perhaps more unsettling for progressive voters is what Antar characterizes as a “weaponized influencer model” at the heart of Mamdani’s campaign.

The data is stark: Mamdani boasts 2.8 million Instagram followers and 1.7 million views on YouTube. His TikTok videos routinely reach hundreds of thousands. Yet, according to Antar’s audit, these impressive metrics have translated into zero unaffiliated grassroots donations.

“This is a marketing campaign with a voter engagement problem,” Antar remarked. “If you can capture millions of views, but not one unsolicited dollar of support, then the public should start asking: who’s really pulling the strings?”

Media outlets have previously reported on Mamdani’s rise from relative obscurity to progressive darling, propelled in part by his viral messaging and endorsements from influential activist networks. But  the media has also noted murmurs from within the progressive base about the disconnect between Mamdani’s digital charisma and his on-the-ground organizing credentials—an issue that Antar’s revelations now bring into sharper focus.

What emerges from Antar’s findings is a troubling case study in what political strategists refer to as astroturfing: the creation of artificial grassroots movements that mimic popular support while being driven by professional operators and opaque funding streams.

“This is political astroturf dressed in the hoodie of grassroots rebellion,” Antar told Newsmax. “It’s the Netflixization of democracy—slick production values, a compelling protagonist, and zero audience interaction outside the script.”

That critique cuts to the heart of a growing debate within New York’s progressive movement: whether digital virality and well-funded messaging are replacing the messy, often unglamorous work of community-based mobilization.

Mamdani’s campaign has not formally responded to Antar’s audit. However, a senior campaign aide, speaking off-record, called the allegations “bad-faith attacks by entrenched interests” and insisted that the campaign’s digital engagement represents “a new model for twenty-first century politics.”

But for Antar—and now a growing chorus of skeptics—the numbers suggest otherwise.

“This is a wake-up call,” he said. “New Yorkers need to stop confusing Instagram metrics for civic legitimacy. If the people aren’t funding you, then you don’t work for the people.”

As New York City’s 2025 mayoral race heads into its final stretch, Antar’s forensic takedown of Mamdani’s finances may mark a turning point—not just for the candidate, but for the political ecosystem that now feeds on the optics of authenticity while too often ignoring its absence.

In a city where revolutions are promised in campaign slogans, but financed through boardrooms and bundlers, Sam Antar’s message is clear: follow the money, not the marketing.