No, I think it's wrong and I'm not sure where he got that idea from. Some examples or citations would have helped to explain where he's coming from.

First, I don't think it's true at all to say that academic economics is "enamored with finance". That's a weird thing to say, because finance is actually considered an entirely separate field, with the finance and econ usually being separate departments, granting separate degrees, up to and including PhDs in Finance vs. PhDs in Economics. There are a bunch of economists, including myself and probably @Undisciplined, who don't primarily deal with finance.

Second, the mathematization of economics was happening long before financial data became widely available or prevalent. I'd say that the mathematization of economics happened because (if you want to look at it charitably) it was necessary. Some problems get too complicated to analyze easily with words, especially when there are competing forces that push in opposite directions. A less charitable interpretation would say that economists have "physics envy". That is, they want to be taken seriously as scientists and therefore prize rigorous mathematical analysis. I'd say the latter interpretation may be driving the obsession with math nowadays, but that the introduction of math to econ was more driven by necessity at the start.

Lastly, I don't think political interference in economics has much to do with its mathematization, nor would I say that the interference is primarily through financial markets. There are plenty of examples of political interference through fiscal policy and through regulation.

So... yeah, this may sound critical, but I have no idea where he got these ideas from...