The ongoing investigations surrounding New York City Mayor Eric Adams paint a concerning picture of potential misuse of power and questionable campaign practices. The involvement of close associates and the serious nature of the accusations suggest a need for greater transparency and accountability in city governance, but most importantly electing the right mayor.

The investigation of Adams’s mayoral campaign was initiated because of the alleged straw donors aided by the government of Turkey. Adams’s Chief Fundraiser Brianna Suggs, whose house was raided for evidence, kickstarted the severity of the investigation.

Adams was continuously connected to shady individuals whom the government should never be involved with. Whether or not he is involved is not the perspective shown, but an important perspective is whether Adams has enough intuition to properly fulfill his duties as mayor.

Adam’s corruption is not of legal standard but, one of morality. It is highly unethical that a person of such high importance was linked to criminals or funded by outside government.

In the case of the straw donor scheme, the two brothers who were responsible were close to Adams. Weirdly, many of Adams’s appointed officials were under investigation or were indicted.

The appointed officials were uncovered to be Adams’ friends, many of whom were deemed criminals or corrupt. The fact that Adams appointed more corrupt officials put his capacity as mayor into question.

Since many of the appointed high-ranking government officials shoveled legal holes for themselves, it shows that Adams showed leniency to his peers, refused to operate under performance standards and overall, lacked ethics.

Adams’ broad approach to budget cuts didn’t work, as the massive backlash caused the plan to be remade. The budget’s failure forced the public to question the understanding the mayor has with the budget as his past mistakes with budgeting are starting to bleed in the wound that was left open.

Many people argue that an investigation shouldn’t impact how people see the mayor because in doing so, it would seem racially charged. Many note that the situation could mirror how 106th Mayor David Dinkins was ousted from a second term.

However, it should be noted that the two situations were radically different. Compared to Dinkins, Adams’s actions provided a lot more ground to negative feedback from constituents and had nothing to do with the race of the mayor.

Adams also showed favoritism to certain city departments over others. For example, he favors the police department the most, which showed in how he vetoed the transparency policy regarding how police officers handle civilian interactions.

Though there is a chance that Mayor Eric Adams was not involved in alleged corruption, regardless the people he was involved with reflect poorly on his image as a mayor. The lack of accountability and transparency in the relationship with his “friends” and appointed “officials” continues to be the cause of the issue with his mayoral capacity and performance.