California is one never-ending well of unpleasant surprises as far as what their elected and unelected state officials are willing - and legally able - to do to their captive populace to make life there just a teensy bit more excruciating.
This week it was regulating what tires they'll be able to buy. Next week, who knows? Literally, how many sheets of toilet paper per allowable bathroom visit, or the number of bulbs in a house? Nothing is too far-fetched to be a future regulatory possibility in some starry-eyed progressive fascist's twinkling brain, and that's really awful.
California also does elections 'differently,' as we have sadly come to notice, but not to terms with.
There was the infamous surge of hope during their recent primaries that the renegade from the scorched Los Angeles hillsides, Spencer Pratt, would actually find himself on the November ballot after his impressive initial primary night vote totals against the third of the mayoral candidates, Councilwoman Nithya Raman.
I mean, he was so far ahead of her - eight percent - on the evening of June 3 that she weepingly bemoaned her loss in an embarrassing appearance at what was supposed to have been a victory party.
Snivel City.
No worries. The Machine swung into slow motion in LA to save Nithya Raman now that they knew how many votes were needed, and, in dribs and drabs of vote counting over the next days and days, found the needed votes they did.
Five days later, there was a miracle 'surge!' and Pratt was out.
Just to contrast, compare, and increase the general sense of disgust, this past Tuesday, the state of Florida held its primary election night - the whole state.
Florida counted 85% of 3.3 million ballots in just 45 minutes. Los Angeles had 2.2 million ballots cast, and was still only at 85% after six full days.
This is almost entirely due to the massive volume of mail-in ballots, the time it takes to process those, and no one is in any hurry to change that.
I'll bet.
Now that the LA mayor's race is set and these two unappealing candidates are facing off over each other's various levels and examples of fiscal and operational incompetence (illuminating and sickening at the same time that THESE are the choices)...
Karen Bass has poured hundreds of millions into Inside Safe and related efforts—over $300 million alone for a program that moved a few thousand people into expensive motel rooms—yet the latest counts show only fragile, partially reversed declines and roughly 40% of participants… pic.twitter.com/WrMUMutRoI
— Missy in So Cal 𝄞𝄢 🇺🇸 (@MissyIsMaga) July 25, 2026
...the campaigning itself has revealed one of the other unique things about qualifying in the strict sense (as opposed to being qualified) to run for city office. The perks built into it.
This latest fundraising video by Mayor Karen Bass had people seeing commie red until someone researched it. What she says is perfectly true and completely legal.
For every dollar some demented fool sends to the Bass campaign, the city - the CITY - of Los Angeles will match it six to one.
WHUT
Karen Bass: “When you donate to our campaign, the city can match your donation 6 to 1! If you donate $5, the city turns it into $35”pic.twitter.com/22lTKFr8o2
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) August 19, 2026
How is it legal to use taxpayer money to get reelected?
That was my question, so here is the answer: LA has a public…
LA'S SUPER MATCH PROGRAM
For a city that doesn't have a dime to spare to fix a pothole or the water pipes that burst and blow homes, businesses, and homeless tents away as waters rush through the city's streets to form new sinkholes...they can do this?
It appears they can, and clueless LA voters did it to themselves in 1990 by approving something called 'Charter Amendment H.'
Voters approved the basic structure in 1990 (Charter Amendment H). It puts a 6-to-1 match on qualified small donations from LA residents, paid out of a dedicated city trust fund. For mayor in 2026 the caps are real: max $257 matched per donor, and hard ceilings of about $1.26M (primary) / $1.51M (general) in public money per candidate.
The Charter says the money must come exclusively from city revenues. No direct state or federal dollars. But money is fungible — every dollar locked into campaign matching is a dollar not available for streets, cops, or anything else.
And who reviews and approves all this? The City Ethics Commission. That’s a real confidence booster. 😂
It gets even sketchier. The city itself doesn't collect or monitor the donations as they are given.
They've assigned that duty to ActBlue. I mean, they are reportedly old hands at laundering funds, right?
Donations are being collected through ActBlue, the same platform used by countless Democratic campaigns. Nothing to see here, right?
So taxpayers are legally required to multiply campaign donations for politicians who opt in. The program has residency checks, audits, and overall limits, but the core idea remains: public money subsidizing reelection campaigns.
Whether you think 1990 voters got it right (or whether mail ballots and the usual LA election questions make that “mandate” rock-solid) is up to you. The law is still on the books.
What is worse is that city taxpayer dollars - much like union dues have been forever - are going to political candidates without the permission of the people who paid the taxes. There's no way to opt out of your tax dollars being in the kitty because the city uses 'general use funds' for the Super Match pot. So everyone is financing Bass's reelection campaign whether you voted for Pratt or not.
No, a Los Angeles resident cannot opt their individual tax dollars out of the city's public matching funds ("super match") program. Municipal tax allocations are mandatory, and there is no mechanism on city tax forms or through the Los Angeles Ethics Commission to redirect or withhold a portion of general tax revenues from being used for the campaign-financing program. [1, 2]
Common Cause says it's been wunderbar for 'diversity'!
After years of advocacy, in 2019 California Common Cause helped strengthen the public matching funds program in Los Angeles. In a huge leap forward, the Los Angeles city council voted to move to a Supermatch public financing program. The most significant improvement to the program is an increased match rate, up from as low as 1:1 to a 6:1 match for participating candidates in both the primary and general elections.
The approved changes also included measures that will allow more candidates to be eligible for matching funds, including:
...This super match public financing program has paved the path for a city government that better reflects the diversity of Los Angeles and represents the needs of all Angelenos. By reducing the influence of private money in our elections system, more kinds of people from all walks of life and political perspectives can run for and win office.
People who are just now finding out about it are not so sanguine, and perhaps it has been one of the best-kept secrets of the past few decades.
Nithya Raman's being awful quiet, though.
Hmmmm. Looks like she had a pretty good May.
Nithya Raman has unlocked another $214k in public matching funds, and has now overtaken Karen Bass in that category by about $100k. https://t.co/ZvN9YnLAbp pic.twitter.com/QUIJt0q2cb
— Unrig LA (@UnrigLA) May 1, 2026
And now Bass's big mouth has maybe gone and ruined a good thing.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member