Growing fears woke LA mayoral hopeful will defund police, close jails and turn blind eye to drugs chaos as she’s branded a socialist wolf in sheep’s clothing
The Los Angeles Police Protective League has accused mayoral candidate Nithya Raman of pledging to co-govern the city with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and pursue their political agenda if elected. The police union, led by spokesman Tom Saggau, claims voters should be wary of Raman's ties to the DSA, arguing that the group seeks to implement policies including police defunding, jail closure, and drug decriminalisation.
The LAPPL has launched a public campaign against Raman, distributing pamphlets to 100,000 homes outlining DSA policy positions such as seizing private property, expanding public business ownership, and redirecting police funds. Raman, a 45-year-old city councillor, voted this week against $100,000 in funding for federal counter-terrorism intelligence sharing but voted in favour of $320,000 for police de-escalation training. She is challenging incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in the 3 November election, and neither Raman nor the DSA has yet publicly responded to the union's allegations.
- Police union accuses LA mayoral candidate Raman of pledging DSA co-governance.
- LAPPL distributed materials to 100,000 households highlighting disputed socialist policies.
- Election scheduled for 3 November against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Voters deserve transparency about a candidate's organisational affiliations and policy commitments, particularly when those associations involve groups with stated positions on matters affecting public safety. The police union's concern is legitimate: if Raman is aligned with DSA policy positions on police defunding, jail closure, and drug decriminalisation, voters should understand this before voting, so they can evaluate whether they endorse these approaches. This is not smearing but rather ensuring informed democratic choice based on actual policy preferences and accountability.
The case against
Membership in or sympathy with a political organisation need not mean endorsing every stated policy position wholesale—individuals hold nuanced views within groups. Raman's actual voting record, which opposes federal counter-terrorism funding whilst supporting police de-escalation training, suggests thoughtful analysis rather than ideological lockstep. The LAPPL campaign, whilst framed as voter protection, comes from an institution with an institutional interest in opposing any candidate likely to scrutinise police budgets, and the inflammatory headline language raises questions about whether this is fair political debate or caricature designed to preempt genuine scrutiny of public safety policy.