Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Video: Laurette Healey's Shady Campaign Finances?

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm no fan of Stuart and give me a break on Bob.

BUT I have to say Laurette is a joke!

How come Jim Alger didn't run?

February 17, 2008 10:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nice hit piece, fellas.

I guess we have to assume that Healey won the last debate then?

February 17, 2008 10:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Oh that's really fucked up. She must be ahead. The rest of the candidates are a bunch of losers.

Go check everyone's statements. They must not have any money to lend themselves. Or their families don't have it either.

February 18, 2008 12:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What this video really shows is that one of the male candidates in the race truly has nothing of substance to offer.

Any guesses?

February 18, 2008 7:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I don't know what you all are complaining about. If we elect Stuart, then he'll be out of our district for at least two years being a whiny asshole in Sacramento instead of the conniving whiny asshole he is in the valley. This, to me, is a very attractive option.

February 18, 2008 8:46 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

One comment from Stuart and four from Laurette. Nice work Higby.

February 18, 2008 8:52 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Laurette is a nutcase, but the problem is that she seems pretty awesome for about 5 minutes. If that's all the attention voters in the 40th pay to this race, then she will win.

This isn't going to change the minds of any voters, but you would have to be a pretty derelict or incompetent lobbyist to send her any sacramento money - and that's the fight for the next couple months.

February 18, 2008 10:28 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A $700 phone bill?

That's a sure sign of financial mismanagement right there.

February 18, 2008 10:30 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The video is obviously from Waddles Waldman. Bob B. would be calling the kettle black given that Nunez is one of his endorsers.

Shame on Stuart Waldman for already lowering the discussion to this. What a waste of energy.

February 18, 2008 11:17 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Whoever Mayor Sam is we have reported your unfairness to the gay community to the GLAAD and you will have to answer to them soon. Your anti-gay stances will not be permitted.

February 18, 2008 11:19 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If Laurette were not a powerful, succesful Gay woman you would not be attacking her. If she were a man it would be business as usual. You support Mayor Vilrlaraigosa but do you attack his campaign contributions? No because he is a straight man. Do you mention the three white men in the race? No you dont.

We as Gay and Lesbian people will not stand for it, you must change this and delete this slander against Miss HEaley.

February 18, 2008 11:22 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's a shame that insecure men who are afraid of a woman who has the track record, experience and where-with-all to represent her community in the Assembly have to resort to bigotry.

February 18, 2008 11:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Scoreboard so far


Stuart - 2
Laurette - 6
Bob - 1
Stuart Hater who is not Bob or Laurette - 1
Others - 2

February 18, 2008 11:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How fashionable in this race we have:

A former Republican and current Lesbian
A Jewish man fashionably married to an African American woman
A Jewish man who joined the Army

Next thing we need is a Methodist! Talk about diversity!

Sam are there even any Republicans running? Waste of time I know.

February 18, 2008 11:41 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A putz he is!

February 18, 2008 11:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

In closing I am quite certain one of Stuart's stooges made that video but it does raise questions about Laurette.

Higby can you put up all the 460s?

February 18, 2008 11:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I think Laurette Healey should just ignore this blog. Just look at Prop S. A candidate endorsement from Mayor Sam is a political kiss of death. Stuart Waldman doesn't stand a chance now. Go Bob, Laurette, Dan and that other guy. Let's see a campaign about ideas, not slung horseshit.

February 18, 2008 1:48 PM  

Anonymous Common Causer said:

Below are the 460 summaries and link to each of the reports.

Candidates loaning themselves money can be used as a tactic to show strength or they could be legitimately willing to spend it. There are ethical concerns about fairness when candidates can buy themselves a race. But we can set those aside when the candidates are all equally able to keep relatively close on finances. It's not like any of these are Al Checchi or the President of Ebay trying to buy a legislative seat.

So, the following shows Waldman to be ahead of the pack only if he is seriously going to spend the money. Blumenfield has raised the most (as you would expect when Berman is making calls on your behalf). And Laurette’s report makes no sense at all.

Technically I don’t think a candidate can call their office space (personal or business) as an in-kind donation. If so, every candidate in the state would “in kind” themselves thousands of dollars of expenses, lost work time, car miles and vehicle wear and tear, phone, fax, flights, etc…

Bob Blumenfield
$214,000 on hand
$15,000 in outstanding payments
$0 loans

Laurette Healey
$100,000 on hand
$17,000 in accrued expenses
$97,000 in loans

Stuart Waldman
$226,000 on hand
$4,500 in accrued expenses
$100,000 in loans

Dan Mc Rory
Has not filed a statement, which means he has not hit the $50,000 threshold.

February 18, 2008 2:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

From the Sacramento Bee:

Stuart Waldman, a candidate to replace his former boss, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, in District 40 in the San Fernando Valley, gave his 2008 campaign $100,000 in late 2005.

"I put in 100K to show my commitment to the race," said Waldman, who added that he was "committed to put in another 200 or 300K."

Rookies padding election coffers
At least 12 novices seeking state office have written themselves six-figure checks, records show


February 18, 2008 2:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

At best, Waldman was a lazy chief of staff for Levine. He still got fired and no amount of campaign shenanigans aimed at other candidates will allay that fact. The only outreach he did in AD40 was self-serving for his run for the seat. I hope he spends every penny of his inheritance on this race. The two positives will be that he won't come in first and it will be a lesson he really needs to learn. Maybe, when he loses, he will learn to be a better person first and how to be a true public servant.

February 18, 2008 3:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The preceding message was brought to you by Lloyd Levine for Senate, major funding by lots of out of the district interests.

February 18, 2008 4:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

As much as you'd like me to be Lloyd Levine, I'm not. Which now means that at least two people in AD40 think Stuart Waldman was worthless and self-serving.

February 18, 2008 6:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You'd have to be shite-for-brains to think that Stuart is Genuine, Laurette is Sane, or Bob is Ready.

February 18, 2008 6:35 PM  

Anonymous Dan McCrory said:

I appreciate that somebody knows I'm still in the race and NOT in the hole. Fact is, I've still got some surprises (legal) up my sleeve. And it's spelled McCrory. If you don't like the other folks, I'd appreciate your support. Dan

February 18, 2008 6:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Dan if you tap your heels together and wish real hard you might just find your heels hurting.

Game over, Dan. Stuart wins.

February 18, 2008 10:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Dan, Stuart MIGHT beat you, but at the end of the day it would only be for second place and you would STILL have 100x the credibility that fired and bitter Stuart Waldman has. Go fight the fight, Dan, and make a contest of it. Credibility is key.

February 18, 2008 10:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How low can you go? Isn't this why you polititians get such a bad wrap?
Laurette must be in the lead. Think of a better one guys!

February 19, 2008 12:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How low can you go? Isn't this why you polititians get such a bad wrap?
Laurette must be in the lead. Think of a better one guys!

February 19, 2008 12:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This kind of politics pollutes the process. While it makes straight men with big egos chuckle, it avoids the fact that they actually feel threatened by Laurette in the end. Guys face it, she's the real deal. And you can be short sighted and biased in your support through june, but then you will know what the sorry side of election day feels like. Or, you can gie her a fair shake. Because, when you look at all of the candidates fairly, it is a no brainer that she's the only star.

If you insist on putting Laurette through the ringer, then take an equally harsh look at the histories and practices of the other candidates in the race.

March 01, 2008 7:44 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This website is pathetic...particularly all of you anonymous wimps. If you want to hack away at people, at least have the balls to list your real names so everyone can identify the idiots in our midst.

May 19, 2008 11:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home