Don't you hate it when you can't tell who's actually doing what wrong?

I know I do.

So this came up over on Mayor Sam awhile back and through a technical glitch, apparently the first post I wrote about it was lost in the ether. Who knew. Damn technology. Anyway, so, you've heard of Laurette Healy, right? She was a Reep. Then and Indy. And now, presto!, a Democrat. She ran for LA City Controller as an independent, supported by Dick Riordan. That right there puts her in my "No" book, but whatever.

So now there's this web clip from an unknown source that I can't really track for background or truth.



Someone doesn't like Laurette Healy very much at all. Good production values. Ticks all the "political hit piece" boxes adequately. But what about the content?

I'm not entirely sure what they are accusing her of is either that bad or that uncommon. They charge that she's already "upside down" in her campaign - she owes more than she has. Well, aside from that making her like a large number of California homeowners, it also makes her like a lot of candidates. Debt now, debt retirement parties later. Time, tide, and the election calendar wait for no fundraiser.

The video also alleges that she is largely funded by loans she's made to herself and loans made by her family members. Shocking, isn't it, that she would be supporting herself or that, worse, her family would be supporting her. Now, candidates have the option of giving themselves money, but they can't later pay themselves back. By loaning the money, she can keep raising - or attempting to raise - funds until she pays herself back. Same for her family. The clips graphs show loans totaling about $118k. Okay, so what. If I'm Laurette, I'll be pointing out that at least she isn't beholden to any special interests (assuming her uncle's name isn't Philip Morris or anything). I suppose the politically nuanced bonus slap is that Laurette Healy can't be a viable candidate if all her cash comes from family and self loans and none (or little) from those willing to back her.

As for the "in-kind" contribution charges: um, I think that might be required if she's using stuff in her campaign. I'll look into it, but again, if I were her, I'd spin that as more of a credit than a criticism - she's being honest about all the resources her campaign is using up (again, though, temper that credit with the possibility that such reporting is required anyway).

What this clip definitely DOES show us, however, is that with the right graphics and right serious voiceover, anyone can be made to look like a jerk with any piece of information offered as evidence.

(There are plenty of comments in the Mayor Sam post, but, true to form, not much other than angry banter is offered.)