Exclusive | Skid Row homeless claim they've been paid to vote for Karen Bass and Nithya Raman 62%

By Katie Jerkovich0%

6/9/2026, 5:38:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 37.6% saturation with 207 hits. Analysis detected 1,056 faulty-reasoning hits from 551 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.1% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,483 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.20% of the article peer group.

A series of shocking videos appear to show homeless residents on Los Angeles’ Skid Row claiming they were paid to vote for Mayor Karen Bass and Councilwoman Nithya Raman. 
The California Post obtained copies of the videos after they were published Tuesday on the TikTok account LaneNeedsSpencerPratt. 
The footage, recorded near 7th Street and Flower Street in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday morning, has since been provided to the Department of Justice. 
The content creator behind the videos said he visited the area after being alerted by a friend who works nearby and claimed to have seen political volunteers operating in the neighborhood in the lead-up to the election. 
One man, identified as Kevin Shepherd, claimed he received $4 to vote for Bass. 
When asked whether he would also have been paid to vote for Raman, Shepherd claimed the answer was yes and said Spencer Pratt was not among the candidates he was encouraged to support. 
“They gave you an optional choice,” Shepherd claimed, alleging he negotiated for a higher payment and ultimately received $4. 
Shepherd further claimed he completed a mail-in ballot for Bass and deposited it in a ballot box. 
“Everybody said it was normal,” the content creator told The Post. 
Several residents alleged that outreach workers allegedly visited the area as often as three to five times a week before the election, with several organizations purportedly involved. 
She also alleged that homeless residents were being taken advantage of. 
Another woman, who said she was living on the street, claimed she was told to vote for Bass and received $2 in exchange. 
The unidentified woman-who said she lived on the street- claimed she was told to vote for Bass and got $2 in exchange for her vote. 
“It was like two bucks,” she said, adding that “yeah they come out here all the time.” 
A fourth resident, identified as Mark Sanchez, claimed he had been approached repeatedly by political canvassers. 
“To sign a petition for the mayor or different things in office and they paid me $4 or $5 in different accounts,” Sanchez claimed. 
Sanchez further alleged the payments occurred multiple times. 
“It happened more than four or five times,” he claimed. 
No voter-registration activity was observed by The Post during the visit. 
However, several residents interviewed in the videos described political outreach efforts as a common occurrence in the neighborhood during the campaign. 
The videos surfaced one day after former reality television star Spencer Pratt was eliminated from the Los Angeles mayoral race as Raman surged into contention for a runoff spot. 
The California Post was unable to independently verify the claims made in the videos. 
It is unclear who conducted the alleged outreach efforts, whether any payments were connected to voting activity, or what documents residents were asked to complete. 
Neither Bass nor Raman has been accused of wrongdoing, and there is no evidence either campaign was involved in the alleged activities described by the individuals interviewed. 
However, the videos offer a glimpse into the extensive political outreach operations that several residents claimed were a regular feature of Skid Row life in the lead-up to the election. 
The California Post reached out to Bass and Raman campaign for further comment. 
Confirmation Bias
8%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
15.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
18.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
5.4%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
10.3%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
5.3%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
4.5%
False Dilemma
4.9%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
10.5%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
5.3%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
2.5%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
37.6%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
16.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
25.8%
Quote-first Misdirection
3.1%
Biased Writer Voice
18.3%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

551 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.