I’ve got to ask. I am keenly aware of what the insiders running the CAGOP in to the ground are doing. IN SD-23, they have poured over $2Million of their limited resources in to Rosilicie Ochoa-Bogh (formerly Bogh). IN CA-10 and CA-35 they lynched the Republican Nominees. They attempted to Lynch the SD-25 Nominee. Jessica Patterson is notorious for ignoring communication from County Party Chairs (that supported other chair candidates of course) while sending emails out claiming to be a party builder.

In between calling write-in also-rans to try to get their delegates and support in 2021, while simultaneously planning a “virtual” 2021 Convention (think no secret ballot, but no proxies either LOL) there is an interesting tidbit:

I am not talking about CA-26 nominee Rhonda Baldwin Kennedy who feels abandoned after being encouraged to run. Kennedy thought it meant support, it appears that Jessica Patterson only cared about the CAGOP Convention delegates.

I am talking about CA-25. Suzette Martinez-Valladares-Valladares was a candidate for Congress before switching off to AD-38.

As of 6-30-2020, her former Congressional Campaign is showing $26,000 in debt. How can this be? I was told by solid insider sources this debt was paid off.

Now it is common to pay off someone’s campaign debt to get them out of a race for congress. Remember, in the CA-25 Primary, Mike Garcia got screwed over by Kevin McCarthy who got 17 time retread Steve Knight in to the primary election race. Remember, Jessica Patterson screwed over Mike Garcia by stuffing the local parties who endorsed him – making sure the CAGOP ignored the Ventura GOP and LA GOP. (Note all three have endorsed Suzette) I had thought at the time that there was some sort of deal.

Why is the $26,000 still showing as debt – I have been told by an extremely reliable source that the electronic media vendor listed as debt was paid off earlier in the year. Why is that not reflected, who paid that debt off and how? You can’t take corporate money and only $2700 an individual – but you can take unlimited money from a party.

Did the attorney get paid? The photographer?

Now, the issue your intrepid blogger has is simple:

AD-36 Tom Lackey is considered vulnerable despite drawing the deeply flawed Steve Fox as his opponent.

AD-26 the Trump Hating Jordan Cunningham (who has told the SLO GOP he will not be on the same doorhanger as President Trump) is in serious trouble.

AD-55 Phillip Chen is in trouble.

AD-68 Stephen Choi is in trouble.

AD-74 Top Target Diane Dixon has been abandoned.

AD-72 Janet Nguyen is far from a lock to hold that seat.

AD-76 and AD-77 have been abandoned.

AD-67 Kelly Seyarto has been ignored (because he is a white male?)

AD-73 Laurie Davies has also been ignored.

But in an R vs R runoff – guaranteeing a Republican wins the November Election, the party is allocating resources and spending considerable time trying to manipulate the outcome? The 9 convention delegates can’t be that important? What am I missing here???

While I think Scott Wilk SD-21 (lots of overlap with AD-38) will survive, I am not sure about Ling Ling Ling Chang, John Moorlach or their $2.5 Million and counting Rosilicie Ochoa-Bogh (formerly Bogh) SD-28 would be colleague.

But we are spending money in a seat guaranteed to elect a Republican?

I know Kelly Lawler the treasurer on that congressional committee filing is ethical. I also know she would not do anything wrong so I am confused. I also know that Suzette’s current campaign manager Tim Rosales is ethical. (Tim has only Repped her Assembly Campaign) So, I am not sure why the paid off debt is not reflecting on the congressional report – or how showing $26,000 in debt reassures would be donors that Suzette is worth donating to? Why is the vendor indicating that the debt was paid off?

Was there an insider deal?

At worst there is a violation of campaign finance laws and an attempt to hide some sort of political deal. At best, this is another act of the Oligachy of Controlled Failure as in re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic as it is sinking further in to the abyss. Either way, some vendors got stiffed by a would be assembly-member. Not a good look at all – no matter what the truth is.

If you know anything about the debt payoff as in who did it, why it is not reflecting on the reports or any other details of the circumstances surrounding the move from CA-25 to AD-38 for Suzette Martinez Valladares, please email asshole@rightondaily.com, you can remain anonymous.