Michael Blake, a longshot mayoral candidate, has sued New York Metropolis’s Marketing campaign Finance Board over not being allowed within the second mayoral debate this week, arguing the board has unfairly denied him a spot on the stage this Thursday.
The CFB mentioned in late Could that Blake wouldn’t be collaborating within the debate as a result of he hadn’t met the fundraising thresholds to qualify for it.
However Blake’s marketing campaign argues within the go well with, filed Monday in Manhattan Supreme Courtroom that he had, in actual fact, met the necessities — receiving $255,313 matchable {dollars} from 1,592 matchable donors — and that it was the CFB’s system errors that mistakenly made it appear that he hadn’t.
The candidate, a former Bronx assemblymember, needs the CFB to “correct” its documentation of over 100 contributions which have allegedly been incorrectly excluded from his whole fundraising numbers, in order that he can go to the controversy.
Blake’s profile has risen after a fiery debate look final week, and with Jessica Ramos’ endorsement of Cuomo, he’s earned some extra assist, with some now itemizing him on their ranked alternative endorsements.
Democratic mayoral candidate Michael Blake speaks throughout a mayoral main debate on June 4, 2025. (YUKI IWAMURA/POOL/AFP through Getty Pictures)
To take part within the second debate, set for June 12, the CFB requires candidates to both have raised $250,000 in matchable marketing campaign donations, together with no less than 1,000 matchable contributions of $10 or extra, spent $2,379,600 or achieved no less than 5% in polls.
There’s no cause they’ll’t right the error they made right here,” Blake mentioned. “… It’s not my campaign or the voters — it’s the system that made that error.”
Blake and his marketing campaign are asking for time to right or resubmit lacking documentation in order that the contributions could undergo.
“While there can be no guarantee that Mr. Blake will repeat this performance at the 2nd debate, it is guaranteed that he will not do so if Respondent CFB’s arbitrary and capricious exclusion is permitted to stand,” the go well with reads.
A spokesperson for the CFB declined to remark.
