Posted on

Our Complaint to FPPC against Councilman Fish

COM-09242026-03946

My complaint concerns Councilman Bryan “Bubba” Fish’s employment by Los Angeles County as a full-time “transit advocate,” his campaign for City Council as a transit advocate, and his subsequent participation in Culver City deliberations on transit matters. In my view, these circumstances constitute a conflict of interest.  Consider this complaint to be similar to COM-04032026-01024 against Fish.

There is an additional inconsistency that I ask the FPPC to address. You upheld complaint COM-01272026-00232 against Councilmember Dan O’Brien, concluding that, as director of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce—a bona fide association—he may not deliberate on matters related to the Chamber. This apparently includes transit matters such as Save Sepulveda, which could restrict parking for businesses along Sepulveda Boulevard.

Yet you rejected substantially similar complaint COM-04032026-01024 concerning Councilmember Fish.

Please explain the rubric applied. Why may an officer of a bona fide association, whose connection to the matter may be indirect, be barred from deliberating, while a government employee paid specifically to advocate for the subject matter may participate in deliberations on that same subject?

As it stands, the distinction does not appear to advance the goal of keeping government decisions free from individual self-interest. Rather, it appears to permit government officials to advance governmental interests and policy objectives while restricting representatives of private citizens and associations from representing the concerns of their constituents.

My understanding is that the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Commission is to prevent public officials from personally benefiting from governmental decisions. Once the standard is extended to representatives of a class or association, however, it risks chilling civic participation and the ability of citizens to petition their government for redress of grievances.

The landlord-tenant context illustrates the concern. Councilmember Fish, as a renter, may serve on the housing subcommittee and help shape rent-control policy. Yet Councilmember Vera, as a property owner, reportedly had to recuse himself from a discussion concerning protection of landlord information. Whether or not those individual decisions were legally correct, the apparent disparity warrants a clear explanation.

I also understand that existing law may restrict certain government employees from running for elective office, and I believe those restrictions may be relevant to Councilmember Fish. However, that is not my principal concern here.

The central issue is that Councilmember Fish is a government-paid official serving on the City Council while advancing objectives associated with his government employment. The FPPC has upheld his ability to do so while, in my view, denying Councilmember O’Brien the ability to represent ordinary constituents and local businesses affected by government policy.

This raises a serious question of whether the governing standard is being applied evenhandedly. It is an unusually clear opportunity to explain which residents, employees, association representatives, and advocates may run for office and deliberate on issues central to their work, affiliations, and constituents.

I respectfully request a written explanation of the applicable legal standard and how it was applied differently in these two complaints.

Posted on

Our 2026 Election Recommendations – for a Transparent, Accountable, and Responsible Council

We’ve been around since 2019, and each election we’ve seen a key issue come forth. In 2020, we had rent control and a Council that wanted to defund CCPD by 50%. In 2022, we had single family zoning, homeless camps, and lane closures. In 2024, we fought to keep the gains we made on these issues.

2026 seems a more abstract issue – transparency, accountability, responsibility – but is really more important than any issue we faced before. It determines whether our city remains viable for the foreseeable future.

Council has been embroiled in several issues this past cycle, which is raising eyebrows:

  • Behind the scenes gambit to buy out Culver Steps and adjoining properties – to the tune of over $200 million
  • No-bid contract to Jubilo Village – granting a $20 million “loan” to a church associated with Councilman Puza’s campaign manager
  • Lane closures / parking space removals at Overland and Sepulveda
  • Illegal campaigning at CCHS, and pushing Measure YV to secure high school votes
  • Zero stakeholder engagement on issues like modifying the rent control ordinance

Taken individually, each is a scandal. Together, these reflect a Council that has their own agenda, seeks to escape accountability to voters, and ultimately loot the treasury for themselves. Especially regarding Measure YV, this may be our last chance to change direction. That’s why we make the following recommendations:

NO on YV – this would allow 16 year olds to vote in the election, and give an impressionable voting bloc to whoever has the best access to the students.  This would create an arms race for access to the schools, with your kids as victims.

Kimberley Griffin and Jeannine Wisnosky-Stehlin for Council – they are critical of the current Council’s conduct, would conduct themselves responsibly, and engage voters on the issues.  They have competitive campaigns – you’ve seen their lawn signs all over town.

Voting ONLY for Darrel Menthe for School Board – Darrel Menthe is running against three progressives that caused a lot of problems for our district. There are three open seats, so you can vote for up to three. But voting for any of the others makes it harder for Darrel to defeat at least one of them.

Posted on

2026 Political Outlook

First of all, thanks to everyone who met the call for donations.  We met our fundraising goal, ensuring we will be functional for 2026.  So here we are for another year. 

And we are certainly needed.  Already, Council is looking to restrict traffic  on both Overland, and now Sepulveda.  The lawsuits against Jubilo Village failed, so we’re looking at $20 million in city funding for that.  Dan O’Brien and Freddy Puza are both up for re-election this year, and we don’t yet know who will rise to challenge Freddy.  And now we are informed that the progressive Council majority will put the failed “Vote 16” ballot measure back on the ballot.  If that passes, expect them to aggressively ballot harvest the high school.

So that’s in in a nutshell for Culver City. 

But that election is in November.  And as we know, Culver City is not an island.  We are surrounded by the city of Los Angeles.  What happens there affects us intimately – as we have witnessed in our various freeway underpasses.  The 405/Venice cleanup was a heroic effort involving Culver City, two LA councilmembers (Park, Yaroslavsky) as well as the Mayor and the County Board of Supervisors. 

Both Traci Park and Karen Bass are up for re-election.  Furthermore, Park has only one challenger – a Bonin protégé who promises to undo all the work Park has done.  And DSA champion Nithya Raman (LA CD4) just announced a last minute candidacy against Karen Bass.  Their elections are in the June 2 primary.  

Whoever wins Traci’s primary will automatically be elected to Council, as an absolute majority will bypass the general election.  Meanwhile, 25 candidates have announced their candidacy for mayor, recalling memories of the desire to oust DA Gascon. Spencer Pratt, whose house burned down in the Palisades, is a promising contender.

The opposition to Bass is palpable, given her handling of the Palisades fires.  But we also risk diluting our opposition among some ~20 challengers.  Meanwhile, we can expect the DSA to hit a heavy ground game to get Raman into the top two candidates who would make it to the general election. 

And we need to do what we can to avoid a Bass/Raman runoff.  As you know, the DSA is violently opposed to everything we stand for.  They want to defund the police, abolish prisons, leave vagrant camps unregulated, and implement road diets.  They’re “housing first” – meaning if the homeless don’t want to move, we can’t touch them. 

So this election has very concrete consequences for Culver City.  We will be getting involved, as we need an LA Council we can work with.  And, given the schedule for this year, we can afford to spend some time on it.

Look forward this year to updates on the LA race and how you can get involved.  But we will certainly be keeping you up to date on the city election and any crazy ballot measures our Council wants to pass. 

Posted on

“It’s a Trap!” – about Measure CL sales tax increase

Tell Council – our police and fire are NOT options paid for with ballot measures!

Also – Fiesta La Ballona this weekend!
A ballot box will be available.

Ballots are due Tuesday the 26th for the all mail-in Ballot Measure CL – a ¼% sales tax increase in Culver City.  Councilmembers O’Brien and Vera are both urging YES to keep the city solvent. But needless to say, everyone is upset about having to approve yet another tax increase, especially after Council recklessly approved:

  • $20 million for Jubilo Village “affordable housing project” – conveniently run by Freddy Puza’s campaign manager, Disa Lindgren
  • $6.5 million to buy out Martin Retting gun store – spearheaded by fly-by-night activist group “Culver 878”
  • $2.5 million to bail out CCUSD (while this may have been necessary, this weighs on CCUSD’s financial recklessness)

We say this because it’s important to understand the text of the ballot measure, so we understand what Council majority is up to:

“Shall an ordinance providing funding for maintaining three fully-staffed fire stations/911 emergency response times; retaining firefighters, paramedics, police officers; homeless reduction services/ encampment prevention; improving parks/fields; repairing potholes/streets/storm drains; senior/youth services and other General Fund uses, by enacting a 1/4 cent sales tax, providing approximately $5,600,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring all funds locally controlled, audits/public spending disclosures, be adopted?”

Meaning – while they squandered all our money on pet projects (leading us to tap into our reserve funds), they are asking for a sales tax increase to fund basic city services like fire and police.  And more so, “encampment prevention” which the last moderate Council seemed to do just fine with no tax increases.

This is an utterly cynical move by progressive Councilmembers Puza, McMorrin, and Fish, who denied they would defund the police if elected.  They have set up a scenario to do just that.

We have decided not to endorse a YES or NO position on this ballot measure, due to popular opposition to any more tax increases.  But it’s important to especially call out Councilmember Puza, who’s up for re-election next year:

Our police and fire don’t need ballot measures!

Posted on

June 18th 7pm – Reimagining Affordable Housing

Join us! June 18th 7pm

With Councilmember Albert Vera
and former Councilmember Goran Eriksson

American Legion Post 46
5309 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Or online – RSVP for Zoom link

Reimagining Affordable Housing 

Council approved $16 million for Jubilo Village – a private church.  Is there a better way for affordable housing?

Come listen to Vera and Eriksson give their analysis on this, and what we as taxpaying residents can do about it.

We’ve seen the headlines. $24 million for Tilden Terrace – a 31 unit building. $35 million for the Astro/Ramada hotels with 70 beds for homeless – $10 million of that coming from the city.

And now, Jubilo Village, a 95-unit affordable housing project, is looking to cost close to $100 million – with $20 million plus $16 million in federal vouchers from our city approved this week.  This development sits on the church of Freddy Puza’s campaign manager, which raises a conflict of interest issue as well.

We are following two lawsuits against this “loan”, which will never be repaid, as well as a staff report saying this will bankrupt the city.  

Meanwhile, the state put our housing goals at over 3000 new units, with limits on affordability. Given these numbers, is this route any more than a pipe dream? Will our city just wind up bankrupt, with nothing to show for it? Could this money be better spent on rental assistance programs, or nurturing our existing housing stock?

Come join us at American Legion Post 46 to discuss how we can better spend our money as a city, and as a state, to resolve our housing issues.

Posted on

On Bryan “Bubba” Fish’s misleading campaign

We wrote the following letter to the editor to Culver City News, regarding their article on Bryan “Bubba” Fish’s recent campaign:

Dear Editor,

Bryan “Bubba” Fish uses misleading terms to describe his platform in your article “Fish places safe street and housing at top of agenda”.  I’d like to elaborate on what he means in its three pillars: “safe streets, housing for all of us, and care-first budget.”

“Housing for all of us” means “housing first” – the philosophy that unless we have permanent supportive housing available for anyone who sleeps on our streets, we cannot touch them or their belongings. 

Needless to say, this attitude on the Council majority would bring back every transient camp we worked so hard to clean up over the past two years.

When Fish claims he wants “safe streets”, he is not talking about crime prevention or public safety.  He wants to “ban cars” as the main public safety threat.  When Council opened up the second car lane downtown, his argument against it was not traffic-based.  It’s that this will exacerbate climate change. Meanwhile, he opposed cleaning up the transient camps at the freeway underpasses (like Venice/405), as it goes against his “housing first” philosophy.  He also supported the ridiculous “bulbout” proposal at Washington Blvd., rather than clean up the sidewalk camp.  Even by his own standards – if the sidewalks are used for transient camps, and only cars can safely traverse, how is this “safe streets?”

When Fish says “care-first budget” he’s talking about defunding the police – namely the 50% reduction progressives have wanted for our city since the George Floyd riots of June 2020.  He advocated against the StarChase program – which allows police in pursuit to launch a “sticky GPS” device on the target vehicle, thus avoiding an unsafe chase.  It’s his argument that should give pause – that police would use it haphazardly, without attempting a stop.  This is a basic slander of our police department as unaccountable and unmonitored.  His very philosophy is police are dangerous, unnecessary, and should be abolished.  Which is effectively what a 50% reduction would do.

Protect Culver City has had to chase down many constituents with the reality of a Fish Council.  He’s been misleading on the campaign trail as well – avoiding the fact he would defund police, bring back transient camps, and impose more road diets.   Hopefully your publication can help set the record straight.

Ron Bassilian, President
Protect Culver City

Posted on

What’s at stake this election

2024 will see Protect Culver City’s five year anniversary.  We began at 2am June 25th, 2019, after Council implemented rent control.  It was how they did it that struck us – in the dead of night, by a Council that never ran on the issue, shutting out all resident input and following verbatim the demands of their militants.  Thus we knew that rent control would not be our only or even primary issue.

We had no idea how right we’d be.  The following year Culver City saw the worst riots since the Rodney King riots of 1992.  Westfield Culver City would have been ransacked were it not for the heroic efforts of the Culver City Police Department.  To thank them, this same council that passed rent control pushed to defund them by 50%.  That proposal was narrowly defeated after one of their own, Coucnilman Fisch, balked at such a radical move.  That began our Defend Don’t Defund campaign, which highlighted Vera and Eriksson’s commitment to CCPD – and the commitment of others to defund it. 

Eriksson won re-election by a narrow 32 votes that year.  If he had lost to Puza, we would not have a police department as we know it.

Since then we have solidified our commitment to the city to inform residents on several issues that should be dealbreakers for any candidate – but unfortunately are not anymore:

  • Culver City should have a police department that enforces laws.  This is not a debate about what the budget should be, or what functions should be offloaded, but whether we have a functional police department.  Defunding 50% would cease their function as crime prevention and demote them to crime reporting. 
  • Our city has the right to clean up transient camps.  If we have a place to send transients, but they don’t want to go, we have the authority to compel them to move.
  • The city is growing and getting denser.  But we should not sacrifice the quality of our neighborhoods to get there.  Likewise, densification requires public space -and in turn, public safety.
  • We believe in the laws of physics and economics.  “Build more housing” does not summon builder elves.  We need economic policies that pencil out and work at the scale that we need – NOT blank checks to developers.  Likewise, naturally occurring affordable housing – i.e., Mom and Pop multifamily – should be supported, not penalized.
  • We push for such transparency and accountability in all the city’s finances, including the school board.
  • We need traffic policies that reflect the reality of commuting in Los Angeles.

These issues should be dealbreakers – but unfortunately, they are not anymore.  “Our Culver”, the latest activist organization in Culver City, advertised their initial meeting “Fund This!” at Veterans Park in April.  They made their intentions clear.  They see this as their Culver City, not everybody’s.  “Fund This!”, as Councilman O’Brien has pointed out, is an allusion to defunding the police – reviving their 2020 demands.  They try to soften the rhetoric for election season, by claiming they’re just diverting some funds to other programs like parks.  But they are otherwise quite clear about their intentions. 

Their tactics don’t stop here.  The MOVE lane closures downtown were enormously unpopular and helped swing the city council from 3-2 for it to 3-2 against it.  But rather than concede defeat, they preferred to file a frivolous lawsuit against the city to delay restoring the lanes.  One of the plaintiffs, Bubba Fish, is running for Council this year with activist support.  Regarding the rent registry doxing, they filed a complaint against Albert Vera, which is delaying council from discussing it as well. 

These tactics show they consider this their city, and they do not wish to share it democratically.

And while they did not stop the new Council from cleaning up the camps at the Senior Center and Venice/405, it took the new Council to get this done.  If they take back the majority, the camps will come back.  Their philosophy is anathema to ours: we can build transients the Taj Mahal – if they don’t want to move, we can’t make them. Compelling them to move, they claim, “causes harm.”

With basic livability issues like these at stake this election, you’d think electing sympathetic councilmembers would be a slam dunk.  Yet even with all the new moderate political organizations sprouting up in Culver City, the outcome of this election is not secure.

This is because when it comes to elections, the activists don’t run on the issues.  At Protect Culver City, we know this all too well.  If they advertised themselves as the candidates to shut down CCPD, shut down key car lanes, or allow tent cities, they would lose.  Instead, they come up with wild stories about Hackman buying out council.  Or smearing anyone who dares run against them.

Just Google our name, Protect Culver City, and you’ll see any number of hitpieces about us.  You’d think Hackman paid hundreds of thousands to import tiki torch donning Nazis into Culver City to smash the hopes and dreams of some innocent hippies.  It sounds like madness, but these articles get wide distribution through and outside our fair city, though activists on social media.  These hitpieces take their tolls.  They reach well meaning voters, who then second guess their support for candidates we support.  It chills the election environment, and prevents our supporters from campaigning openly and effectively.  Meanwhile, these activists proudly strut around their support for their own candidates.

We anticipated these tactics.  When we first formed to push back on the rent control conversation, we predicted that Council would not pay attention to us unless we forced them to.  Our ballot measure did that.  But rather than discuss rent control, they wrote hit pieces about us as some dangerous right wing threat. 

From our police department, to zoning, to dealing with transient camps, they kept these same tactics. 

Today we remain the only PAC in Culver City to have forced them to campaign against us.  Which is why we’ve borne the brunt of their attacks.  Other candidates thought they could just run on the issues and get slam-dunk support from voters.  They quickly saw their names dragged through the mud.  Thus learning the hard lesson that these are not neutral issues – one must stand up and fight for them.

But the city is adjusting.  Several other PACs have formed to push back against the progressive slate, as well as candidates championing them.  For better or worse, Culver City now has party politics.  It doesn’t translate to Democrat/Republican – the above issues enjoy wide bipartisan support – rather, it acknowledges that an individual candidate can no longer win on their own.  They need the support of these PACs and their members, who are ready to mobilize.

We already know who the progressives have picked to represent them – Yasmine McMorrin, Bubba Fish, and Nancy Barba.  The loose coalition of PACs opposing them are supporting Albert Vera, Denice Renteria, and Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin.  These latter three have the thankless job of remaining above the fray of mudslinging while championing the causes we do. 

So how do we support them?  By sticking to the issues.  We cannot react in kind to the tactics of these activists.  We do not name-call, nor are we simply here to resist their agenda.  We have to put forth our own vision for the city, our stance on the issues, and where the candidates stand on these issues.  And we have to remind 29,000 Culver City voters what those issues are, and where the candidates stand.

Again, these seem like slam dunk issues.  But we can fully expect these activists to muddy the water and make the election about anything but these issues.  We need to campaign on these issues, loud and clear, to 29,000 voters.  We need mailer campaigns, door knockers and phone bankers of our own.  Our members need to have the tools to reach out to their neighbors and discuss these issues that essentially separate Vera, Renteria, and Wisnosky-Stehlin from Imani-McMorrin, Fish and Barba.

When voters are aware of these issues, vote on these issues, and ignore the noise and the mudslinging, we win.  We all win.

Posted on

NO on Measure E: The more we look at it, the worse it gets

The basics: $86,000+ spent to pass Measure E – ALL from developers, NONE from residents:

  • TELACU construction $25,000
  • PJHM Architects $10,000
  • Barnhart Reese Construction $25,000
  • Ruhnau Clark Architects $25,000
  • Sandy Pringle Associates $1500

Contrast that to the expenditures against Measure E, with contributions entirely from Culver City residents and stakeholders:

  • $3000 from Protect Culver City
  • $2000 from Save CCUSD

$86,000 investment for a $360 million bond ROI?  Where do WE sign up?

Furthermore, TELACU has been going around campaigning for the bond measure.  Clearly, this is a conflict of interest.  But while activists accused Hackman of buying out the city by giving us $5000, they are utterly silent on this issue.

That this is a naked tax grab for fat developer contracts is already evident.  But by proponents’ own argument, voter’s only oversight to this will be the state oversight board.  

Meanwhile, we have Measure K from 2018 to see just how little oversight to expect.  Measure K raised over $2 million a year for school programs.  Most of it wound up going to a single contractor, New Earth – after the oversight committee had been dissolved, and with little to show for it.  When residents demanded an accounting of how the money was spent, they were met with Cease and Desist orders – from New Earth, with contact info provided by our new Assistant Superintendent of DEI.

Yes, it’s true.  While we need $360 million to fix leaky roofs, we can afford a DEI assistant superintendent – complete with office and staff.  Who is now on leave, presumably because of the above scandal.

This is in addition to many other ethical issues plaguing our school district. The idea of a bond measure to cover repairs has raised the attention of the county, which has asked for an audit of the city’s finances. The school district is also under fire for using school resources for political purposes, including their parental e-mail list.

So there you have every reason to doubt Measure E funds will go where they’re stated – even if you agree with the stated goal.  The details of this are still a bit iffy, but that’s the story as we understand it.

So what can you do?

We found that people who are supporting Measure E have been subjected to the pro-E campaign before we had a chance to talk to them.  Proponents have made some false claims, like that it won’t involve any tax increase, and is just free money from the state.  This is false.  It’s a $600/mil/year property tax increase.  So if your home is valued at $1.5mil, you can expect to pay almost $1000/yr to pay for this.

So, talk to your neighbors about this.  If you know someone with a YES on E sign, ask them if they’re aware of this information.

We put out our door hanger campaign, and that’s all the money we have to spend on the issue.  But letters to the editor are free, and so are forwarded e-mails.  If people want, we can create a PDF flyer to hand to neighbors to enlighten them about this issue.

Successful campaigns have the three M’s – Money, Message, Militants.  All the proponents have is money, and its ability to amplify a tiny voice.  We have the message, and we have the militants to get it out.  Let’s make sure our neighbors are aware of this disaster of a measure.

Posted on

No on E: our homes are not your ATM

Arguing against a ballot measure is always difficult, especially when it comes to schools.  Immediately you must face the argument “why don’t you support our children? Why are you so miserly?”

But this measure will raise our property taxes significantly – $600/year per $1mil valuation of our homes.  And many homeowners in Culver City are on a fixed income – this extra $1000+ year tab won’t be easy to swallow.  Unlike a sales tax, there is no avoiding this.  Those of us footing the bill should expect an accounting of how that money will be spent. 

And right away we see issues in the language of the bond.  The money will be spent on needed repairs.  Not a brand new building or an overarching vision to renovate the campus.  Shouldn’t repairs be part of the general budget?  Yes, they should. 

So why are they asking for a bond to do needed repairs?  The answer is we have a school board that just isn’t very good at managing money.  They haven’t had a controller since March 2023, and have had issues staffing a number of other officers.   

One thing they’re not missing is their new assistant superintendent of DEI, along with a staff and office, or consultants at New Earth which apparently got most of the Measure K Parcel tax, passed in 2018.  The school board stonewalled the oversight committee.  When residents asked for some transparency, New Earth sent them cease and desist orders – with emails apparently provided by the assistant superintendent. People suspect that’s why the assistant superintendent is currently on leave.

When you look at who’s funding the passage of this bond, it gets worse.  $25,000 donated by TELACU construction and $10,000 by PJHM architects.  TELACU came under scrutiny in 2014 for its pay to play tactics in Centinela Valley school district.  They are actively campaigning for the very bond measure they stand to profit from. Some would consider it the standard kind of horse trading that goes on in elections.  It doesn’t make it any less repugnant to a small town based on small donations.  And it’s hypocritical given that the same people accused Hackman of buying out the city by donating $5000 to us. 

We get it.  Our city has expenses.  Sometimes, those expenses reach beyond the general budget, and the city needs to ask us to pitch in a bit extra to maintain or upgrade services. 

We just don’t think they’re into this bond for the benefit of the kids.

Given what we’ve seen – of this school board’s history, of their stated intentions for this bond measure, and of our ability to audit what they spend it on – this bond measure does not pass that scrutiny.  Vote NO on this one.  Our homes are not the school board’s ATM every time they come up short.

Posted on

Our endorsement of Jonathan Hatami for District Attorney

District Attorney George Gascon’s radical policies have made LA County dramatically less safe.  Per CCPD statistics, crime in Culver City is up nearly 50% since he took office in January 2021.  There is little debate that the next district attorney needs to quickly and effectively undo the damage he has done.  

Many candidates have stepped forward to claim they would do exactly this.  Except for a couple candidates, challengers all agree on this platform.  

Hatami came seeking our endorsement in such a field of qualified and well funded challengers.  Our endorsement of him is not a criticism of these others, who we expect to support should they make it past the primary election.

We are endorsing Hatami because his story sparked our members with enthusiasm.  His is a simple story of a survivor of child abuse, who’s dedicated his life to giving victims justice and closure for crimes committed against them.  His role in the Gabriel Fernandez child abuse case got 30 million views on Netflix.  People know him and are ready to go to bat for him.

For us at Protect Culver City, that’s what matters.  Endorsing Hatami will allow us to harness our member enthusiasm.  We can rally behind one candidate and get the word out about the importance of the district attorney race.  We won’t confuse people with subtle distinctions.  

Most importantly, being able to campaign for him in the primary will get more voters out to vote against George Gascon and make sure he doesn’t et 50% of the vote in March – because if he does, he’s automatically re-elected.

We think Hatami is qualified, electable, and has a broad reach and a compelling story to challenge Gascon.  We at Protect Culver City are proud to offer him our endorsement.

So what does this mean?

Endorsing Hatami means we can start getting the word out to Culver City residents about the importance of this race.  Door hangers and flyers cost money – for that, we need your help!  It costs about $2500 to get a door hanger out to everyone who’s not behind a secure building.

DONATE NOW

The issue simply isn’t who to vote for – it’s who we need to make sure doesn’t make it past the primary.  Jeff Chemerinsky has several key endorsements – but at the DA debate the other candidates called him “Mini Gascon.”  They have reason to.  His father Erwin served on Gascon’s transition team.  And Jeff’s answers revealed he will do nothing different.