By; Jerome Brookshire

As New York City barrels toward one of the most contentious mayoral elections in recent memory, the political spotlight has turned sharply onto Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the self-proclaimed socialist and Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) member who has emerged as a frontrunner in the November general election. While Mamdani has electrified progressives with his left-wing agenda and fierce criticism of Israel, The New York Post has learned that his campaign has quietly secured nearly $10 million in taxpayer-funded matching dollars, even as his financial disclosures reveal troubling inconsistencies that call into question the integrity of his filings and his candidacy.

The revelations strike at the heart of New York’s campaign finance system, raising serious questions about whether the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) and other oversight bodies are exercising equal scrutiny across candidates, or selectively overlooking discrepancies in Mamdani’s record. For critics, it is the latest episode in a growing list of “red flags” surrounding the 33-year-old assemblyman, whose rapid political ascent has been matched only by the controversies it has generated.

According to a report on Saturday in The New York Post, Mamdani has successfully tapped into the city’s generous matching fund program — a system designed to level the playing field for grassroots candidates by providing $8 in public funds for every $1 raised in small contributions from New Yorkers. In his case, the program has already translated into a staggering $10 million windfall, propelling his campaign war chest to heights rivaling — and in some cases surpassing — those of far more established rivals such as incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Yet the disbursement of these funds has coincided with revelations of inconsistent financial reporting between Mamdani’s state and city filings — discrepancies that, if left unresolved, could imperil his eligibility or even invite legal penalties.

Central to the questions now dogging Mamdani is his ownership of a vacant plot of land in Jinja, Uganda, reportedly valued between $100,000 and $250,000. In a recent disclosure to the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB), Mamdani claimed to have acquired the property on March 14, 2016. However, in filings with the state Legislative Ethics Commission covering the years 2020 through 2024, Mamdani stated that he had taken full ownership of the property in 2012 — a discrepancy of four years that raises concerns about the accuracy, or even the honesty, of his reporting.

For a candidate whose platform is rooted in themes of social justice, accountability, and public trust, such an inconsistency carries symbolic weight. As defense attorney and independent mayoral candidate Jim Walden told The New York Post, “Every time you scratch the surface with this guy, more red flags emerge. Here, the obvious concern is that he is understating his wealth. He should come clean. If he can’t be honest, add that to the growing list of disqualifiers.”

The discrepancies do not end with real estate. Mamdani’s filings also reveal contradictions in his reported ownership of stock in a company called MiTec. His COIB disclosure lists holdings worth between $5,000 and $55,000, yet in his most recent state filing from 2024, Mamdani declared that the only securities he possessed were less than $2,000 in a retirement account tied to his 2019 work at the social-justice nonprofit Chhaya.

Even more striking, Mamdani’s campaign later admitted to The New York Post that the MiTec investment had, in fact, been dissolved on December 23, 2024, with Mamdani receiving a payout of $4,943.68, half of his initial $10,000 stake. The campaign pledged to amend the COIB filing to reflect these details — but the admission came only after scrutiny from reporters.

The retroactive amendment raises the specter of whether the discrepancies were innocent mistakes or deliberate attempts to obscure wealth — an especially sensitive issue for a candidate who has positioned himself as a champion of the working class.

Mamdani’s COIB filing also listed a retirement plan valued between $1,000 and $5,000, though his previous state disclosure omitted such details, instead citing only minimal securities connected to Chhaya. While such omissions may appear minor compared to discrepancies over land ownership or stock values, critics argue they illustrate a broader pattern of imprecision — or worse, misrepresentation — in his financial reporting.

Lisa Partelow Reid, executive director of the state Legislative Ethics Commission, explained to The New York Post that elected officials who knowingly make false statements can face fines of up to $40,000. While she noted that discrepancies are often assumed to be “inadvertent errors,” the commission nonetheless retains authority to impose penalties should evidence of intentional misrepresentation emerge.

For political observers, the most troubling element of the controversy may not be Mamdani’s filings themselves but the perception that regulators are selectively enforcing rules. As The New York Post report emphasized, both Mayor Adams and former Governor Cuomo have been denied millions in matching funds after their campaigns were flagged for various violations. In contrast, Mamdani has been permitted to retain nearly $10 million in public funds despite his disclosure discrepancies.

Veteran Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf questioned whether oversight bodies are tiptoeing around Mamdani out of fear of being accused of bias. “It’s hypocritical at best,” Sheinkopf told The Post. “The question is whether state and city entities — which are designed to be independent and apolitical — are ignoring Mamdani’s discrepancies because they’re worried about being accused of Islamophobia.”

The implication is stark: in the charged political climate of New York, watchdogs may be bending standards for fear of being perceived as discriminatory, thereby undermining the very principle of impartial oversight.

Mamdani’s campaign, for its part, has sought to downplay the controversy, telling The New York Post that the COIB filings would be amended to reflect that the Uganda property was acquired in 2012, not 2016, and to acknowledge the payout from MiTec following its dissolution. His team framed the discrepancies as clerical oversights rather than deliberate concealment.

Yet the fact that corrections are being made only after external scrutiny has given critics ammunition to question Mamdani’s credibility. In politics, where perception often matters as much as fact, the episode risks reinforcing an image of a candidate cavalier with rules he expects others to obey.

The controversy also strikes at a deeper tension within Mamdani’s campaign: how does a self-styled socialist, advocating for wealth redistribution and railing against capitalist inequities, reconcile ownership of foreign real estate worth up to a quarter of a million dollars and investment in private stock?

For opponents, the optics are damning. They argue that Mamdani’s undisclosed or inconsistently reported assets belie his working-class persona and expose a gap between rhetoric and reality. As The New York Post report observed, Mamdani earns $142,000 annually as a state assemblyman — a comfortable income by any standard, and one that complicates his efforts to cast himself as a tribune of the downtrodden.

The disclosure discrepancies are only the latest in a series of controversies swirling around Mamdani. His outspoken criticism of Israel — particularly his reluctance to unequivocally condemn Hamas’ October 7 massacre — has alienated large swaths of Jewish voters and invited accusations of antisemitism. His socialist agenda, meanwhile, has unsettled the city’s business leaders, raising fears of punitive taxation, reduced investment, and capital flight.

As The New York Post has repeatedly documented, Mamdani’s rise has coincided with growing unease among moderates and the corporate community who worry that his radical platform could destabilize New York’s fragile post-pandemic recovery. Now, with financial irregularities entering the picture, Mamdani faces not only political but ethical scrutiny.

The stakes extend far beyond Mamdani’s individual candidacy. New York City’s matching funds program was designed to bolster faith in democracy by giving ordinary voters and grassroots candidates a fair shot against entrenched political machines. But if the system is seen to be funneling millions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of a candidate whose disclosures are riddled with contradictions, public confidence in the program itself may erode.

The question facing New York voters is not merely whether Mamdani should be mayor, but whether the mechanisms intended to safeguard transparency and fairness are functioning as intended. If the rules are applied unevenly — harshly for some, leniently for others — the legitimacy of the entire system is at risk.

As Mamdani continues his march toward the November election buoyed by nearly $10 million in public funds, the questions raised by The New York Post about his financial disclosures remain unresolved. Was the four-year discrepancy in property ownership an innocent mistake, or an effort to minimize the perception of wealth? Were stock holdings omitted from earlier filings out of oversight, or out of convenience?

For now, Mamdani’s campaign insists on clerical error. But as critics note, the pattern of omissions and contradictions points to something more troubling: a disregard for the very transparency and accountability he demands from others.

In a city weary of political scandal — from Adams’ corruption probes to Cuomo’s fall from grace — New Yorkers may be forgiven for treating such discrepancies not as trivialities, but as red flags. And as millions of taxpayer dollars continue to flow into Mamdani’s campaign, the question lingers: is this really the kind of stewardship the city deserves?