A devastating wave of corruption scandals is engulfing high-ranking Democratic officials across the country, exposing what prosecutors describe as a systemic culture of self-dealing, financial fraud, and abuse of public trust that has reached into the highest levels of party leadership. The latest charges against a prominent Los Angeles city councilman represent just the tip of an iceberg that threatens to undermine public confidence in Democratic governance and institutional integrity.
The corruption investigation that has ensnared Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price represents one of the most complex and financially significant cases of municipal fraud in recent California history. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office filed two additional charges against the Democratic councilman this week, bringing the total scope of alleged criminal activity to over $800,000 in misappropriated public funds and questionable financial arrangements.
Price, who has served as the Los Angeles City Councilmember for the Ninth District since 2013, now faces an expanded criminal case that prosecutors describe as a systematic abuse of public office for personal financial gain spanning multiple years and involving numerous city agencies and contractors.
“Embezzling public funds and awarding contracts for your own financial gain is the antithesis of public service,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman declared in announcing the additional charges. “Our communities expect and deserve better from their public officials.”
The district attorney’s strong language reflects the severity of the allegations and the broader implications for public trust in municipal government. Hochman continued: “I thank our investigative team and prosecutors in the Public Integrity Division for diligently pursuing every lead and holding elected officials accountable. Self-dealing and pay-to-play politics will not be tolerated in Los Angeles County.”
This commitment to accountability comes as prosecutors have uncovered what they describe as a sophisticated scheme involving multiple agencies, fake relationships, and systematic conflicts of interest that allegedly enriched Price and his associates at taxpayer expense.
The most financially significant aspect of the corruption case involves allegations that Price orchestrated a complex scheme whereby city agencies paid his wife’s company more than $800,000 while he simultaneously voted to award those same agencies multimillion-dollar contracts—a clear violation of conflict-of-interest laws and ethical standards.
According to prosecutors, the Los Angeles County Housing Authority and LA Metro paid Price’s wife, Delbra Pettice Richardson, through her company Del Richardson & Associates, more than $800,000 total at the same time Price was voting to approve massive funding allocations for these agencies.
The Housing Authority component of the scheme was particularly brazen. Between October 22, 2019, and June 30, 2020, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles allegedly paid Del Richardson & Associates approximately $609,600. During that exact same period, Curren Price voted to approve a $35 million federal grant and supported a $252 million state grant application for the agency.
The timing and amounts involved suggest a coordinated effort to extract maximum financial benefit from Price’s official position while he was simultaneously making decisions that would benefit the agencies providing payments to his wife’s company. The fact that his staff had flagged the potential conflict of interest beforehand indicates that Price was aware of the ethical violations but chose to proceed anyway.
The LA Metro component of the scheme followed a similar pattern. From October 27, 2020, to October 20, 2021, LA Metro reportedly paid Del Richardson & Associates approximately $219,500. During that same timeframe, Price introduced and voted in favor of a motion to allocate $30 million to LA Metro, despite his staff having again flagged the conflict prior to the votes.
These allegations reveal a systematic pattern where Price’s official votes and advocacy directly benefited agencies that were simultaneously paying substantial sums to his wife’s business, creating what prosecutors characterize as a clear pay-to-play arrangement that enriched the councilman’s household while violating his fiduciary duties to taxpayers.
Beyond the contract steering allegations, Price faces charges related to an even more personally damaging scheme involving healthcare fraud based on a fake marriage claim that allowed him to embezzle city funds for personal medical benefits.
Price is accused of embezzling approximately $33,800 in city funds from 2013-2017 to pay for medical benefits for Richardson, whom he falsely claimed was his wife while still being legally married to Lynn Suzette Price. This deception allowed him to obtain spousal healthcare benefits for Richardson at taxpayer expense while maintaining his actual marriage to another woman.
This aspect of the case reveals not only financial fraud but personal dishonesty that undermines Price’s credibility and demonstrates a willingness to lie about fundamental personal relationships to obtain financial benefits. The multi-year duration of this fraud suggests systematic planning and ongoing deception rather than a momentary lapse in judgment.
Prosecutors have also uncovered allegations that Price exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and associated relief programs to direct federal funds to organizations where he had undisclosed financial interests, representing another layer of the corruption scheme that took advantage of emergency programs designed to help vulnerable populations.
According to the charges, Price used his position in city government to direct city lease agreements and more than $2 million in federal COVID-19 relief grants to the nonprofit Home at Last. At the time of these votes and funding decisions, Home at Last was a paying tenant of the Urban Healthcare Project, where Price was serving as CEO.
This arrangement created a direct financial pipeline from federal COVID relief funds through the nonprofit to an organization where Price held a leadership position, essentially allowing him to benefit financially from emergency funds that were intended to support homelessness initiatives and pandemic relief efforts.
The exploitation of COVID relief programs adds particular moral weight to the charges, as it suggests that Price was willing to divert resources meant to help vulnerable populations during a national emergency for his personal financial benefit.
The current additional charges build upon an already substantial criminal case that was filed against Price in June 2023, revealing that the corruption investigation has been ongoing for years and continues to uncover new evidence of systematic wrongdoing.
Price was initially charged with five felony counts of embezzlement of government funds, three felony counts of perjury, and two felony counts of conflict of interest. These original 10 felony counts alleged that Del Richardson & Associates received payments totaling more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021 from developers before Price voted to approve their projects.
The pattern revealed in the original charges established that Price’s corruption extended beyond city agencies to include private developers who were seeking approvals for their projects. The allegations suggest that developers paid Richardson’s company substantial sums before Price cast votes that would benefit their projects, creating a systematic pay-to-play system that undermined the integrity of the city’s development approval process.
Price pleaded not guilty to all original charges, setting up what promises to be a lengthy and high-profile trial that could expose the full extent of corruption within Los Angeles city government and potentially implicate other officials who may have been aware of or participated in the schemes.
The Price case represents just one component of what appears to be a broader pattern of corruption investigations targeting high-ranking Democratic officials across the country, suggesting either coincidental timing or systemic problems within Democratic political organizations and governance structures.
As noted in the district attorney’s announcement, other prominent Democrats are currently facing serious criminal investigations that could result in significant prison sentences and political consequences for the party’s leadership and credibility.
Grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are currently considering criminal indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Senator Adam Schiff on allegations that they falsified property records to obtain preferential loan conditions. These cases involve federal mortgage fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud charges that each carry potential 30-year prison sentences.
The targeting of such high-profile Democratic figures—including a sitting U.S. Senator and a state attorney general who has been prominent in legal challenges against Republican politicians—suggests that the corruption investigations transcend local politics to encompass national Democratic leadership.
The appointment of Ed Martin as Special Attorney to oversee the prosecution of James and Schiff demonstrates the federal government’s commitment to pursuing corruption charges against Democratic officials regardless of their political prominence or previous roles in challenging Republican politicians.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision to appoint Martin, a former acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., signals that these cases will receive the kind of high-level prosecutorial attention typically reserved for the most significant corruption investigations.
“Attorney General Bondi and President Trump have given me a very serious mission. I am committed to going where the facts take me. For months DOJ and the FBI have been working on these two cases, it is my job to stick the landing,” Martin stated, indicating that federal investigators have been building cases against these Democratic officials for an extended period.
The reference to “sticking the landing” suggests confidence in the strength of the evidence and determination to secure convictions rather than accepting plea agreements that might minimize the consequences for high-ranking Democratic officials.
The wave of corruption investigations targeting Democratic officials creates significant political challenges for a party that has often positioned itself as the defender of ethical government and institutional integrity. The combination of local, state, and federal investigations suggests problems that extend across all levels of Democratic governance.
For the Democratic Party, these scandals undermine messaging about Republican corruption and create vulnerabilities that Republican opponents can exploit in future elections. The fact that the investigations involve officials from California, New York, and other Democratic strongholds suggests that the problems are not limited to particular regions or local political cultures.
The timing of these investigations, coming as the Trump administration has prioritized corruption prosecutions, creates additional political complications for Democrats who must balance support for due process and legal protections with the need to distance themselves from potentially criminal behavior by party colleagues.
The Price case, in particular, raises broader questions about oversight and accountability mechanisms in municipal government that allowed systematic corruption to continue for years without detection or intervention by internal controls or external oversight.
The fact that Price’s staff repeatedly flagged potential conflicts of interest but that he proceeded with questionable votes anyway suggests that existing ethics systems may be inadequate to prevent determined officials from abusing their positions for personal gain.
The involvement of multiple city agencies—Housing Authority, Metro, and various departments—in the alleged schemes suggests that the corruption may have been facilitated by inadequate coordination and oversight between different components of city government.
As these corruption cases proceed through the legal system, significant questions arise about recovery of misappropriated funds and implementation of reforms that could prevent similar abuses in the future.
The $800,000 involved in the Price case represents substantial taxpayer money that was allegedly diverted from its intended purposes, and recovery efforts will be crucial for restoring public confidence and ensuring that legitimate programs receive adequate funding.
Beyond financial recovery, these cases may necessitate comprehensive reforms to ethics oversight, conflict-of-interest procedures, and accountability mechanisms that can detect and prevent systematic abuse of public office for personal financial gain.
The multiple high-profile corruption cases place significant demands on prosecutorial resources at both state and federal levels, requiring coordination between different jurisdictions and agencies to ensure effective investigation and prosecution.
The complexity of financial fraud cases involving multiple agencies, contracts, and transactions requires specialized expertise in forensic accounting, public procurement law, and criminal procedure that may strain the capacity of district attorneys’ offices and federal prosecutors.
The high-profile nature of these cases also creates political pressures that could affect prosecutorial decision-making and resource allocation, particularly when cases involve officials who have been prominent in national political controversies.
The outcome of these corruption cases will have lasting implications for Democratic Party credibility and the broader question of whether effective oversight and accountability mechanisms exist to address systematic abuse of public office.
Successful prosecutions could demonstrate that no officials are above the law and that corruption will be punished regardless of political affiliation, potentially restoring some public confidence in institutional integrity and accountability.
However, if cases result in acquittals or minimal sentences, it could reinforce public cynicism about the ability of legal systems to hold powerful officials accountable and could embolden other officials to engage in similar abuses.
The corruption scandals engulfing Democratic officials from Los Angeles to New York represent a critical test of American legal and political systems’ capacity to address systematic abuse of public office and maintain institutional integrity across partisan lines.
The Price case, with its allegations of systematic pay-to-play arrangements, fake marriage fraud, and exploitation of COVID relief programs, illustrates the various ways that determined officials can abuse their positions for personal financial gain when adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms are absent.
The broader pattern of Democratic corruption investigations suggests either coincidental criminal behavior or systematic problems within Democratic governance structures that require comprehensive examination and reform.
As these cases proceed through the legal system, they will test whether American institutions can effectively hold powerful officials accountable regardless of their political connections and whether the rule of law can be applied equally to officials from both major political parties.
The stakes extend beyond individual cases to encompass fundamental questions about public trust, institutional integrity, and the effectiveness of democratic governance in addressing corruption and maintaining ethical standards in public service.
House Republicans are exploring legal and constitutional strategies to block New York City mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani from being sworn into office if he wins Tuesday’s election, citing the Constitution’s post–Civil War “insurrection clause,” according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
The effort, first reported by the New York Post, is being led in part by the New York Young Republican Club, which argues that Mamdani’s past statements calling to “resist ICE” and his ties to left-wing organizations could qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States — language drawn directly from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
That provision, enacted in 1868, bars from public office any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, or who has provided “aid or comfort” to its enemies.
The clause was originally intended to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office but has recently re-emerged in political debates over ballot eligibility.
“There is a real and legitimate push to see the insurrectionist Zohran Mamdani either a) removed from the ballot or b) removed from office if he is to win on Tuesday,” said Stefano Forte, president of the New York Young Republican Club.
Several House Republicans are said to be reviewing whether the clause could be enforced through new legislation or congressional action following next week’s election. The idea mirrors the legal arguments used in Colorado last year to try to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot — a move the Supreme Court ultimately overturned, ruling that Congress, not individual states, has the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3.
The Court’s decision has emboldened some GOP lawmakers who believe the ruling effectively places responsibility for such enforcement in the hands of Congress, where Republicans currently hold a narrow 219–213 majority in the House.
According to two congressional aides, Republican leaders may consider holding a post-election vote to declare Mamdani ineligible for office under the clause. Such a measure would face significant procedural and legal hurdles, including a likely filibuster in the Democrat-controlled Senate and near-certain court challenges.
In addition to the potential 14th Amendment challenge, House Republicans are pressuring the Justice Department to review Mamdani’s path to U.S. citizenship, claiming he may have violated the terms of his naturalization oath.Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging her to investigate what he described as “statements inconsistent with the oath of allegiance required of new citizens.” Ogles cited Mamdani’s 2018 naturalization and accused him of “refusal to disavow violent anti-American rhetoric.”
He reiterated those allegations in a post on X, claiming Mamdani “came to the U.S. from Uganda to turn America into an Islamic theocracy.”
In his letter, Ogles argued that Mamdani’s past remarks and political affiliations amount to a “broader pattern of conduct inconsistent with the oath of allegiance.”
He urged the Justice Department to examine whether denaturalization proceedings are warranted, referencing existing immigration law that prohibits membership in communist or totalitarian organizations for new citizens.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) also joined the campaign, accusing Mamdani of omitting material information from his citizenship application, including membership in the Democratic Socialists of America and comments defending the “Holy Land Five,” a group of Palestinian-American leaders convicted in 2008 for funneling money to Hamas.
“New York City falls to communism next week, and they will have nobody but themselves to blame,” Fine wrote on X, referencing the upcoming mayoral election.
Mamdani, currently a member of the New York State Assembly representing Astoria, Queens, denied the accusations and said Republican lawmakers are trying to weaponize the law against a political opponent.
“No matter how many times these Republican Congress members or the president of this country calls me a Communist, it doesn’t make it true,” Mamdani said in comments to The Post last weekend.
A Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed receipt of Ogles’ letter but said responses to congressional correspondence have been delayed due to the ongoing government shutdown.
“The Department does not comment on the status of ongoing or potential investigations,” the spokeswoman said.