Hedge-fund billionaire Bill Ackman plans to bankroll a New York City mayoral campaign, arguing that his affluent associates are poised to flood the election with money in an effort to defeat Democratic Socialist frontrunner Zohran Mamdani.
Ackman said he was “gravely concerned” because he believed the left-wing candidate’s policies would be disastrous, triggering an exodus of the wealthy that would endanger New York’s public services by hollowing out its tax base.
Arguing that his own support of President Trump would automatically disqualify anyone Ackman might put forward, the activist investor said he was making a public appeal: Anyone capable of taking down Mamdani in the Nov. 4 election should step forward and volunteer.
“Importantly, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of capital available to back a competitor to Mamdani that can be put together overnight (believe me, I am in the text strings and the WhatsApp groups) so that a great alternative candidate won’t spend any time,” he wrote.
“So if the right candidate would raise his or her hand tomorrow, the funds will pour in.”
It’s unclear whether New Yorkers would honor such a candidate. The recent intervention by Elon Musk in Wisconsin’s state supreme court election indicated the voting public does not always respond well to billionaires using their money to sway races.
New York mayoral races are notoriously unpredictable due to the city’s chronically low turnout. In 2017, for example, Bill de Blasio won reelection with only 14% of registered voters coming out to support him.
A large influx of New Yorkers heading to the voting booth because they are as concerned as Ackman could easily affect the outcome. If Cuomo can hold on to enough fundraisers, political pundits also point out, it’s possible he could run as an independent like Adams, splitting the left vote and spoiling the race.
Ackman, however, argued all these factors would support the emergence of a centrist candidate looking to position themself on the national stage. It could even be another businessman like Bloomberg, he suggested, although Ackman in an earlier post appeared to indicate he would not seek to run himself.
“For the aspiring politician there is no better way to get name recognition, build relationships with long-term donors, and to showcase oneself,” the hedge fund manager wrote, pitching the campaign like a business deal. “The risk/reward of running for mayor over the next 132 days is extremely compelling as the cost in time and energy is small and the upside is enormous.”
Always follow the money. Why are GOP and billionaires afraid and against this man who pledges to help the poor and struggling working class? Because they obviously have an interest in keeping the poor and struggling in the status quo conditions in which they live.
If helping the poor didn’t hurt their bottom line, they wouldn’t pay to keep it from happening.
I don’t think it’s just the money, but that people who have leisure time also have time to think deeply.
why vote when legal bribes work this well?
Always vote, despair after. Don’t hand them an easy win.
Because they massively outspent Zohran in the primary and still lost. Vote because you can still overcome this. They want us to give up and think we can’t. Don’t do their dirty work for them
Wow they outspent him by 4:1?
Yep, and even larger can be overcome too. If you look AOC’s 2018 primary upset, she was outspent by over 10x
Insane outspending can be overcome. Obviously it makes the fight harder, but money is not everything
Sometimes a left leaning candidate is a great, effective leader (think AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren). Sometimes they are bat shit (think Kshama Sawant). I’m not sure where his guy lands on the spectrum. But as voters, I think we have to look at the candidates through a critical lens and remember left-leaning doesn’t always make a great leader.
okay centrist
I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying centrist candidates are a good idea. I’m saying it is incumbent on us to select strong left-leaning leadership because the alternative can do more harm than good (ranging from being ineffective to outright divisive and undermining the movement). I want the left to be successful but it’s like they looked around and chose the worst possible representation.
Well, the proposal here is to prop a billionaire’s pawn to replace a left-leaning candidate who proved himself by winning the primaries.
Take your time with your assessment.
And he’ll totally win the election even with an alternative running against him. I’m saying he’s gonna do a bad job in office and make the left look bad, while simultaneously not delivering on his political promises.
Maybe, but do you prefer someone failing while trying to improve things or someone successful at trickling up money? And how do you actually know the alternative will not be a total failure?
Any candidate is a risk of failure. Why would he be a bigger risk?
At least if he wins, he’ll show a leftist can win! That may inspire some more to get in politics.
There’s a greater risk of negative consequences when people try to make a sweeping change, which Mamdani is trying to - especially if some of that sweeping change is not well tethered to reality. I’m not spun up about the tax thing. That piece will be fine, good even. But his ideas around grocery stores shows a huge ignorance about the mechanics (and therefore costs and how much the customer will actually save) of running stores. Fair collection isn’t the biggest, or even a substantial, cause of delay to public buses. If he wants free buses, that should be the end of the discussion. Closing streets for kids to play has all sorts of impacts to residents (how will they move?) that appear to be unconsidered. Mamdani has displayed poor thinking and bad decision making already - which I think will continue into his term. He is the best candidate, but not a good candidate.
“Vote blue no matter who” just evaporates into nothingness the instant someone other than a centrist wins a primary.
You’re putting WARREN with the likes of AOC and Bernie?
Why bother “recommending caution” if you aren’t informed in the topic?
You could’ve asked. You could’ve read about his policies and endorsements. You could’ve just stayed silent.
Instead, you fearmonger about nothing
The point was never about learning anything. The point was to sew divisiveness. Hey, higher poster than the one I’m replying to: fuck off.
The fact that this guy put together a political apparatus from grassroots that ran rings around the NYC Democratic establishment despite being outspent 4:1 speaks very well about his leadership abilities.
Billionaires are scared. That’s a good sign …
What’s super ironic to me is that taxing them actually makes them safer because if they pay their fair share people wouldn’t want to murder them as much as they do now.
They think they can buy enough guards to keep this from happening to them.
You don’t think the entire police/military is already enough guards? They need a few more personal ones?
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/one-nation-under-guard/
They absolutely can not if people finally decide it’s time. Guards are good against individuals wanting to fight, not against a mob, or against assassins who really want to kill them. Guards can’t stop bullets or bombs, and they can’t hold back much more than one person each if those people want through.
they can’t hold back much more than one person each if those people want through.
Keyword “IF” those people want through. A lot of people still seem to think the world would crumble without billionaires, but that vibe is visibly shifting which is nice to see.
Gotta remember we’re talking about state guards too - cops, military, etc. They stopped an invasion of the capitol by killing one lady. They would’ve killed many more if necessary… And those were their own fascist protestors. They’ll murder progressives/leftists en masse without remorse. Just check out any fascist state (eg. pinochet)…
Billionaires control the actual weapons of murder, surveillance, torture, etc. They’re completely protected regardless of their tax bill. One Luigi isn’t going to change that.
And if they paid as much of a percentage as you or me they’d still have more wealth than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes. When a hoarder can’t self-regulate, others have to step in.
That’s why taxing the ultra-rich and closing all the loopholes needs to be seen as the compassionate option: it’s literally better for everyone. All of society is harmed when the wealth gap further widens…
Luigi saved lives and billionaires cried.
Billionaires hate him, genocide enablers hate him, fascists hate him, Nazis hate him, government criminals hate him, citizen concerned for fellow citizens love him.
This Texan Jew is about to send some donations to a Yankee antisemite.
*references to antisemitism are sarcasm based on comments from people who apparently loooove fascism*I mean if money is all you need to win an election is it really an election? These people are fuckin ghouls.
Guy kinda sounds like a douchebag
Somebody more left-wing than Mamdani has the chance to do something hilarious
You joke but he might like that just fine. Two progressive candidates splitting the progressive vote could hand an easier victory to a right winger.
Gotta run a hard right campaign, backed with the money. Either the money works and you win, then expose yourself as a secret leftist, or the money doesn’t work and it doesn’t matter
It’s wild that they billionaires are openly just saying “whoops, we can’t be letting the people elect someone good for them, here let’s fix that”.
It’s beautiful. Mamdani and any other socialist will campaign on this hard. These mfkers have gotten really dumb having amassed wealth in an environment where their ancestors had made relative peace with the working class in part by propagandizing that rich people are food for the workers. They seem to think that the status quo where people aren’t wholesale anti-rich is a stable equilibrium. I guess they’re not reading the latest data.
We need to fix democracy in this country. We can’t keep allowing the poor and brown-skin people to vote in favor to their best interest. At least the GOP, MAGA and Billionaires are swiftly working in a solution for this problem.
Okay, but Cuomo spent triple what Zohran spent, and got his ass kicked.
Tell you what, just distribute all that money to your employees, and the result of the election will be the same as if you blew it all on a loser.
So let me get this straight. Current tax law favors billionaires. He’s concerned that progressive policies will target taxing billionaires forcing a mass exodus of billionaires thereby undercutting the tax base. In other words they’re already not paying taxes but taxing them more will make them leave. Make it make sense.
It’s sad because it does have to be a global movement. If my country decides to heavily increase taxes on the wealthy - as should be done - this is exactly what happens because they can just easily move to Switzerland or Monaco, or some other tax haven, and laugh us right in the face. It’s the genius of capitalism
That’s not how it works. If you’re American, you pay taxes to the US no matter where you live. If you work overseas you may have to ALSO pay taxes to the country you’re living in, unless you expatriate yourself (where the word “expat” comes from) or denounce your US citizenship completely and emigrate. It’s a mess.
Let them cry all they want, because they’re not going to leave. And if they do – good riddance. They contribute nothing to society anyway.
If you’re American, you pay taxes to the US no matter where you live.
lol… That’s not how rich people do things.
Evidence shows that while rich people threaten to leave for tax or financial reasons, they rarely do.
Because generally speaking they aren’t that hit. Sweden, for example, removed its wealth and inheritance tax reeal fast once it was introduced in the 90s.
Norway introduced such measures with their current government and suddenly you have a ton of wealthy Norwegians finding their way to Switzerland. So yes, you do see it happening, and the more you’ll increase it the more likely they are to move and take their resources with them. I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t gax the rich, of course, but that it needs to be globally coordinated (which it will never be)
US taxes don’t really work like that. Any money earned in the US is subject to taxes, regardless of where the person lives. The only taxes they would avoid are state taxes.
Of course, this guy is a city mayor, so he’s not doing federal taxes.
It is at least plausible that taxation could cause a move, but if you are rich in NYC moving out would be forfeiting some of the prestige. Who wants to admit that money issues caused them to leave “billionaires row”?
These losers a terrified of people figuring out how badly they are being screwed by the Goofy Old Phuckers.
So they are ok with spending hundreds of millions of dollars, just not in any way that actually improves the city for the people that live in it?
It’s not about the money, it’s just misanthropy.
“It’s not to make sure that I have a lot; it’s to make sure that I have a lot more than everyone else. Forever.”
Exactly. The ‘public services’ he wants to save is bribery to avoid paying his fair share. This guy is offering a ‘powerful people’ club membership so he can avoid giving back to a society that enabled his mindblowing fortune. Our system has gotten so used to it he’s totally good with saying it all out loud as if he’s some sort of victim.
Society’s cancer.
A leech trying to explain why it’s good it’s sucking your blood.
Who owns the voting machines? Is the software audited? Are there tabulation servers?
Electronic voting machines are a free-for-all. TBH, I would feel a helluva lot more comfortable with them if they were regulated at the very least as strictly as the 100K+ Electronic Gaming Machines across the state of Nevada.
Bitch you lose
