By: Jewish Voice News

By any measure, Curtis Sliwa’s second failed bid for New York City mayor has left behind more than another lopsided defeat. It has left behind unpaid workers, unreturned calls, a mountain of grievances, and a troubling portrait of a man who campaigns on accountability, discipline, and law-and-order rhetoric—while unable or unwilling to pay the very people who propelled his political ambitions. As The New York Post reported last Thursday, Sliwa now stands accused of stiffing canvassers, campaign staffers, office workers, and even media outlets—including the widely read Jewish Voice—out of money they earned and were contractually entitled to receive.

The emerging story, as described by frustrated workers and documented by The New York Post, is not simply about clerical delays or bureaucratic inefficiency. It is about ethics. It is about credibility. And it is about whether a man who built his reputation on being a “Guardian Angel” of the vulnerable can justify stiffing the vulnerable when the bills come due. The picture now forming is of a candidate who demanded loyalty from his team but offered very little in return—financially or otherwise.

According to The New York Post report, some of the most passionate complaints have come from the lowest-paid workers on the campaign—the hourly canvassers promised $25 per hour to knock on doors, work phone banks, and staff field operations across the five boroughs. For many of them, the unpaid wages represent hundreds or thousands of dollars—money they urgently need.

One canvasser from Queens told The New York Post he is owed $2,000 and has been unable to reach anyone in the campaign for clarity. “I am owed a couple of substantial paychecks,” he said. “I pray to God … I need the money badly.” His desperate plea, highlighted by the Post, is not the sound of political theatrics—it is the voice of a New Yorker who fulfilled his end of the bargain and is now left waiting while Sliwa, by all appearances, shrugs.

Alonzo Henderson, who worked in Sliwa’s Bronx campaign office, also told The New York Post that he is owed back pay. His remarks were blunt: “When someone is promised something, you need to live up to that end of the promise — especially when you’re running on reform.” His indictment strikes at the core of Sliwa’s political persona: the mismatch between message and behavior, rhetoric and reality.

Sliwa, never one to shy away from firing off counterattacks, attempted to dismiss Henderson’s claims by asserting he had been paid $600 before being terminated “for verbally abusing and threatening staff.” Henderson, in response, flatly denied the accusation. But whether that individual dispute holds water or not, the sheer number of people stepping forward with identical complaints forms a pattern that cannot be brushed aside.

The most astonishing part of the saga is that the Sliwa campaign is not broke—not even close. According to Campaign Finance Board data cited by the Post, Sliwa raised $6.87 million, an astonishing sum for a candidate who ultimately garnered only 7% of the vote in a race dominated by Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo.

Of that total, roughly $5.3 million came from public matching funds. Nearly $5.1 million was spent, leaving an estimated $1.7 million in the campaign’s account—more than enough to pay outstanding invoices, settle debts with staff, and honor financial commitments to the many people and organizations who worked on Sliwa’s behalf.

But according to campaign spokesman Rob Cole, Sliwa is merely “in the accounting process,” and everyone “needs to be patient.” This refrain, quoted in The New York Post report, has only deepened the frustration of those owed money. Patience is a luxury many low-income workers do not have. And when those pleading for their wages hear that the campaign is sitting on seven figures in unspent funds, patience becomes nearly impossible.

While the most visible victims of Sliwa’s negligence have been canvassers and field workers, insiders familiar with his earlier political ventures know this is not the first time Sliwa left unpaid bills in his wake.

During his first mayoral campaign in 2021, Sliwa entered into a sizeable advertising agreement with The Jewish Voice, a widely circulated publication. The arrangement was straightforward: the campaign purchased ad space and agreed to pay upon invoice. When Sliwa lost decisively to Eric Adams, the bills came due.

And Sliwa simply ignored them.

Sliwa repeatedly failed to pay The Jewish Voice, repeatedly ignored invoices, and repeatedly brushed off attempts to bring the matter to resolution. Left no choice, the publication contacted the Board of Elections. They were advised to escalate the matter to the Campaign Finance Board, which had given Sliwa substantial public matching funds.

But the CFB—overloaded, unresponsive, or simply uninterested—did nothing. Calls were not returned. Letters were ignored. And the publication, like so many individuals today, was effectively abandoned. This is not a clerical hiccup. It is a character issue.

It raises fundamental questions about Sliwa’s honesty, integrity, and respect for contractual obligations. If a man cannot pay his employees or his vendors, what moral authority does he have to campaign on fiscal responsibility, transparency, or ethical leadership?

Insiders close to both campaigns—2021 and 2025—told The New York Post that Sliwa still has approximately $400,000 left over from his first mayoral campaign and $1.7 million from his current (failed) campaign.

Yet workers are owed money. Vendors are unpaid. And the Jewish Voice—whose audience spans millions across the tri-state area—remains uncompensated after years of polite requests and bureaucratic appeals.

At what point does “delay” become “deception”?

At what point does “processing” become “stonewalling”?

And at what point does Sliwa’s refrain—“Everyone will get paid”—become simply another empty line from a man who built his public persona on heroism but has yet to demonstrate heroism in his moral obligations?

While canvassers struggled to buy groceries, Sliwa was spending extravagantly on his own transportation—behavior extensively chronicled by The New York Post.

Between February and October, Sliwa’s campaign spent $30,000 on Uber rides, $4,700 on yellow taxis, $1,900 on subway fares — despite claiming he “mostly takes the subway”

That is nearly $35,000 in rides—a whopping 135% more than Mamdani spent on transportation and exponentially more than Cuomo, who spent nothing on cabs, subways, or rideshare services.

When asked to justify the lavish spending, Sliwa told The New York Post he feared for his safety after refusing alleged bribes. But this explanation rings hollow when placed alongside the financial suffering of his staff.

How does a man justify luxury Uber trips while canvassers beg for their wages?

How does a candidate preach reform while stiffing those who supported him?

How does a man claim to be a voice for the working class while refusing to pay the working class?

The contradictions are glaring.

As The New York Post reported, Sliwa’s campaign was effectively dead on arrival. With no realistic chance of victory, Republicans across the city abandoned Sliwa and voted for Andrew Cuomo as a strategic alternative to Zohran Mamdani.

Even President Donald Trump urged New Yorkers to vote for Cuomo—not Sliwa.

Even Sliwa’s longtime boss, WABC owner John Catsimatidis, accused him of being a spoiler, urging him to show responsibility and drop out. Sliwa refused.

In a recent radio interview, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said, “Sliwa has been a total fraud for decades… I believe he cost me the election..”

He stayed in, burned through millions in public funds, and left the people who served him unpaid.

When added together—the unpaid workers, the ignored invoices, the lavish ride expenses, the hollow promises, the aggressive self-justifications—a pattern emerges. A pattern troubling enough to demand scrutiny from anyone who values ethical governance.

The New York Post has done the public a service in documenting the facts. But the implications go beyond numbers, invoices, or spreadsheets:

If Curtis Sliwa cannot responsibly manage a $6.8 million campaign, how could he ever manage a $100 billion city budget?

If he cannot honor simple contractual obligations, how could he ever be entrusted with the public trust?

If he cannot pay the Jewish Voice, what does that say about his integrity?

The answer, increasingly clear, is that Curtis Sliwa’s brand of “reform” is a slogan, not a principle. His “Guardian Angel” persona is a costume, not a commitment. And his insistence that “everyone will get paid” is a refrain belied by history and contradicted by facts.

Curtis Sliwa’s failure to pay his workers and vendors—especially those such as The Jewish Voice who upheld their contractual obligations in good faith—reflects a profound lack of responsibility and an alarming disregard for ethical conduct.

At a moment when New York City desperately needs leaders who are transparent, reliable, and genuinely committed to public service, Sliwa has demonstrated the opposite: evasiveness, negligence, and indifference to the people whose labor powered his campaigns.

As The New York Post reported, more information is likely to come to light. But even now, the narrative is unmistakable: Curtis Sliwa is no guardian angel—not to his staff, not to his vendors, and certainly not to the truth.

And New Yorkers deserve better.