Brian Romero, the Democratic Socialist nominee for New York's 34th Assembly District in Queens, asked supporters last week to help cover his rent and groceries while waiting out a financial gap before taking office. The GoFundMe sought $2,000, raised more than $1,000 from 13 donors, and was removed Friday after the New York Post inquired about it. The position Romero is almost certain to fill pays $142,000 a year.
What moved and why
Romero stepped away from his job as a senior adviser to state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez earlier this year after receiving ethics guidance that required him to leave once he became a candidate for the Assembly. He won June's Democratic primary by a wide margin and faces no Republican opponent in November. The gap between those two events is where the story turns.
In the since-deleted post, Romero wrote that he had saved for months to cover the transition but had depleted those savings as consulting work dried up. He said he was unable to collect unemployment benefits. State payroll records cited by the Post show he earned $106,469 last year as a legislative aide. He and his partner rent an apartment in Jackson Heights for about $2,600 a month.
The counterargument
Candidates who resign from salaried positions to satisfy ethics requirements can face a genuine, if short-lived, income gap. That is a structural feature of New York's election calendar, not evidence of recklessness. An income of $106,469 is comfortable; it does not guarantee savings large enough to absorb months off payroll. The mechanism Romero describes, leaving a job on ethics advice and then waiting out a long campaign calendar, is a real constraint.
Jordan Libowitz, vice president for communications at Citizens for Ethics in Washington, told the Post he could not recall another instance of a lawmaker-elect publicly soliciting financial assistance while awaiting office. That is the line to watch. The structural problem may be real. The public ask is still without precedent.
On balance
Romero told the Post creating the fundraiser was "a mistake," said he consulted with friends before removing it, and said he did not keep any of the donated money. Friends have since offered to cover his expenses privately. Those facts close the immediate ethical question. They do not resolve the political one.
The read-through for a candidate whose platform centers on economic inequality is uncomfortable: strangers sent him more than $1,000 before he pulled the page down.