by Michael Goodwin
In the spirit of giving the devil its due, we must salute The New York Times for its epic examination of how China is influencing New York City elections.
A team of nine reporters convincingly documented how agents of the Beijing government “helped defeat a state senator for attending a banquet with the president of Taiwan . . . condemned a City Council candidate on social media for supporting Hong Kong democracy . . . and ended the careers of politicians who opposed China’s authoritarian government.”
The article claimed, with evidence, that Chinese agents set up scores of supposedly charitable organizations in Manhattan and throughout the five boroughs as part of its scheme, and that the organizations are violating their state and federal tax-exempt status by engaging in political advocacy.
Clear-cut interference
Among other things, the 4,000-word opus, which ran on Monday’s front page and included digital links to relevant videos online, was a welcome break from the paper’s relentless condemnations of President Trump.
Apparently it couldn’t find a way to blame him for the scandal of numerous clear-cut instances of election interference by a foreign adversary.
Of course, if China had been working to help Trump instead of New York Democrats, including Mayor Adams, Gov. Hochul and leftist candidates for the City Council and state Legislature, rest assured it would have been a very different story.
In that case, Russiagate, the Times’ warped obsession in Trump’s first term, would have gotten a second life, this time as Chinagate.
The reporters uncovered a web of Chinese “hometown association” groups that are effectively created and controlled by the government’s Manhattan consulate.
As they write, “More than 50 organizations with ties to Beijing have mobilized members to fund-raise or endorse political candidates over the past five years . . . Many were nonprofit charities, which are prohibited by law from electioneering.”
It cites videos of 35 ceremonies where Chinese government officials led groups of New Yorkers through oaths that affirm China’s Taiwan policy and promise “to safeguard the development interests of the motherland.”
The reporters found “at least 19 registered charities that had ignored the ban on election activities.”
“And yet,” they write, “the hometown groups made endorsements or hosted fund-raisers despite answering ‘no’ to questions from the Internal Revenue Service.”
They report that the IRS declined to comment, then add: “A spokesman for New York’s tax agency, which is responsible for enforcing a similar state law, said it did not have the resources to look for such violations.
Imagine that.
You can bet Attorney General Letitia James would be on the case in a heartbeat if these groups were helping Trump or any Republican.
But as long as they’re helping the right team, it’s not a big deal.
At least nine of the supposed nonprofit charities with ties to China have endorsed the re-election of Mayor Adams, the Times says.
It quotes a leader of the Chong Lou USA Association Headquarters as saying he was mobilizing the group’s 2,000 members to re-elect the mayor, adding, “We are all united in voting for him.”
The reporters clearly have been working on the story for a long time, which is how they witnessed money changing hands at three Adams rallies in July.
Times sat on the story
But the paper didn’t report those earlier incidents until last week, after Winnie Greco, a longtime Adams associate and campaign volunteer, handed a potato chip bag stuffed with cash to a reporter from The City.
The Times then wrote that its reporters had “witnessed other Adams supporters handing out red envelopes with cash at three separate campaign events: one in Flushing, Queens; another in Manhattan; and a third in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park.”
It said payments to Chinese media reporters were common as thank-yous and coverage sweeteners.
The Times also quoted an aide to Adams, Todd Shapiro, as saying the campaign tries “to safeguard against any improper influence.”
“If any group is prohibited from making endorsements or engaging in campaign activities, those rules apply to them, and we expect them to follow the law.”
Hochul has had her own questionable dealing with front groups for China’s government.
The Times reports the Asian American Community Empowerment nonprofit co-hosted a fund-raiser for her in late 2021 at a restaurant owned by the group’s leader, a businessman named John Chan.
The paper claimed he “is aligned with the Chinese government and was once convicted of trafficking heroin and smuggling Chinese citizens into the United States.”
It wrote that, months later, Hochul announced that $10 million in pandemic aid would be distributed to Asian groups, with Chan’s nonprofit getting $45,000.
In addition, the FBI arrested a former aide to Hochul, Linda Sun, and accused her of conspiring with the heads of two Chinese associations, saying their political activities “were supervised, directed, and controlled” by Chinese officials.
Are the votes legal?
These and other painstaking details make the long article compelling, yet there remains a glaring hole at the heart of it.
The argument that the associations are flipping elections by turning out voters in sufficient numbers to make the difference ignores a fundamental issue.
If the groups are engaged in illegal political activities, why does the Times not even question if the voters it says are deciding these narrow elections are American citizens, and thus legally permitted to vote?
After all, to become a citizen and gain the right to vote means going through the naturalization process, which generally means holding a green card for at least three years.
Applicants must also maintain continuous US residence, demonstrate good moral character, and pass English and civics tests.
Then comes the citizenship “Oath of Allegiance” ceremony, which requires applicants to renounce all foreign allegiances.
Only then would registering to vote be even possible, assuming all other information is accurate and honest.
Yet if these voters are still swearing allegiance to China in other settings, as the Times demonstrates, they have not fulfilled a basic legal requirement of citizenship, and their votes might be illegal.
Given how close some of the elections involved were, it is a major omission for the Times reporters not to raise the prospect of illegal voting, especially in the context of their otherwise admirable work.
I raised that point in an email to one of the lead reporters on the story, asking why the writers assume the votes were legally cast if the organizations promoting the candidates are operating illegally.
His name is Michael Forsythe, and a short Times bio says he has written extensively from and about China.
He would likely then have some knowledge about how Beijing agents operate on foreign soil, including America.
I never got a response, leaving me with the suspicion that there is another huge dimension to this election scandal.
