The Brief

With fewer than six weeks to go before the June election, candidates running for City of L.A. and Los Angeles Unified School District offices have raised a combined $19 million, according to records from the L.A. City Ethics Commission.

Campaigns for mayor, District 11 City Council member and city attorney have emerged as the most funded races.

Here’s how they stack up:

L.A. mayor

Mayoral candidates Karen Bass and Adam Miller are leading all L.A. city candidates in fundraising, with $3.7 million and $2.7 million raised so far, respectively.

The candidates have tapped into very different sources to fund their campaigns.

Miller, a tech entrepreneur and leader of multiple nonprofits, has loaned $2.5 million to his own campaign and raised just $223,000 from donors since entering the race in February.

Bass, on the other hand, had already gathered more than $2.3 million in contributions by January. She’d received some of those donations as far back as July 2024.

The city’s matching funds program has also given Bass a nearly $874,000 boost over Miller, who did not qualify to receive a 6-to-1 match from the city on donations that meet certain criteria.

Nithya Raman, City Council member for L.A.’s District 4, has had the quickest growth in donor support out of all candidates for mayor after entering the race in February.

She’s received a combined $1.1 million from direct contributions and matching funds from the city.

Former reality TV star Spencer Pratt has received about $538,000 in contributions, and Presbyterian minister and community organizer Rae Huang has taken in about $273,000.

District 11

Traci Park, who is the current City Council member for the 11th district, has brought in about $1.4 million so far through contributions and matching funds.

Faizah Malik is an attorney at the nonprofit law firm Public Counsel and is challenging Park for her council seat. She has raised about $632,000.

This race also has the largest amount of outside spending across the city and LAUSD.

About $972,000 has been spent in support of Park, including about $634,000 from the Los Angeles Police Protective League and $297,000 from a committee sponsored by United Firefighters of L.A. City.

Unite Here, a labor union representing hospitality workers, has spent more than $220,000 in support of Malik.

City attorney

Hydee Feldstein Soto, the incumbent city attorney, has raised nearly $1.2 million in contributions and matching funds.

Marissa Roy, deputy attorney general, has raised nearly $1 million in her race to unseat Feldstein Soto.

Deputy District Attorney John McKinney and human rights attorney Aida Ashouri have raised about $73,000 and $14,000, respectively, in the race.

Los Angeles Metro is suing Burbank over its refusal to grant construction permits for the local portion of a rapid bus route from North Hollywood to Pasadena.

The Burbank City Council only learned about the lawsuit halfway through a six-hour meeting about the bus on May 20. After the revelation, council members wondered aloud if Metro was watching the live stream and questioned what the purpose of the meeting was if they were now, apparently, in active litigation.

The special meeting was called to update the public over staff’s concerns about how a new state housing law could affect zoning around the long-planned bus stops along Olive Avenue.

“It turned out the update was more than we thought,” Burbank City Attorney Joseph McDougall said during the meeting. McDougall said the city hadn’t yet been served as of Wednesday evening.

According to a copy of the complaint filed on May 19 in L.A. County Superior Court, Metro argues that Burbank doesn’t have the authority to refuse the construction permits under the California Environmental Quality Act and an agreement forged between the countywide transportation agency and the city.

Metro is asking the court to direct Burbank to “cease conditioning issuance, approval, or processing” of project permits on any of the city’s issues with the design of the bus route.

Fast facts about the project

In 2022, Metro’s Board gave final approval for a 19 mile-long bus rapid transit route that features 22 stops through North Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale, Eagle Rock and Pasadena.

Bus rapid transit projects are those that typically feature dedicated bus lanes, signal priority and enhanced stations. Think of a bus rapid transit as a light rail on wheels instead of tracks.

The bus rapid transit project is funded in part with nearly $270 million of local sales taxes collected through Measure M, which county voters approved in 2016.

Metro is looking to break ground in July 2026 so the bus is operational in time for the 2028 Olympic Games.

The center of the ongoing battle between Burbank and Metro is the section of yellow in the Burbank portion of the bus rapid transit route showing that the countywide transportation agency wants to construct side-running dedicated bus lanes.

(

L.A. Metro

)

Competing perspectives on the bus lanes

The city of Burbank has been resolute through the bus route’s design process that it doesn’t want dedicated lanes along Olive Avenue. The city’s position is that dedicated bus lanes would leave only one driving lane in each direction on the arterial street, causing congestion and spillover traffic on smaller, neighboring streets.

It has instead advocated for the bus to run with other traffic to preserve all the driving lanes.

Metro’s position, according to the lawsuit, is that removing dedicated bus lanes would “materially increase travel time and reduce reliability and ridership … undermining the premium transit service that justified the public investment under Measure M.”

What does housing have to do with this?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 in 2025, which establishes regulations that allow for higher and more-dense housing around specific kinds of transit stops than what local zoning rules would otherwise permit.

The qualifying transit stops in the region have yet to be determined. Still, David Kriske, Burbank’s assistant community development director for transportation, said the bus rapid transit could trigger the law since the five of the six stops in the city would be serviced by buses traveling along full-time, dedicated lanes.

In January, Burbank requested Metro do an additional environmental impact review of the project, specifically on any new land use impacts in light of the bill’s passage.

In a March letter to the city, Ray Sosa, Metro’s chief planning officer, said “the adoption of statewide legislation that could potentially result in development or redevelopment of parcels near project stops does not require Metro to re-open an environmental review concluded nearly four years ago.”

At Wednesday’s meeting, city officials displayed a poster board showing the potential areas that could be upzoned around the planned bus stops. One incensed public commenter pointed at the map and said it looked like “detonation zones and blast radiuses from Metro into Burbank.”

Metro's Board voted earlier this year to oppose implementation of the law.

This image displayed on a poster board facing the public at the May 20 shows where the city of Burbank thinks SB79 would apply because of Metro's bus rapid transit project.

(

City of Burbank

)

More on the lawsuit

Metro’s legal action isn’t entirely surprising. According to a letter to the city attorney attached to the lawsuit, Metro’s outside counsel had presented a draft of the complaint to the city on May 8.

Metro said in a statement that it “had little choice but to file a suit” since Burbank has “decided to withhold all permits unless Metro removes dedicated bus lanes or conducts additional environmental review because of the passage of SB 79.”

The countywide transportation agency’s lawsuit says it has spent nearly $44 million so far on design and pre-construction of the bus route and that “each day of delay increases Metro’s damages and threatens its ability to deliver the project” by the 2028 Games.

Jonathan Jones, communications manager for Burbank, said the city won't comment on pending litigation.

This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.

The Los Angeles Unified School District, among other districts, has called on the state to help mitigate financial challenges for projects. And despite some help, they’re still anticipating deficits beginning in the 2027-28 academic year.

For its June general, unrestricted budget, LAUSD is projecting a deficit of $1.351 billion for the 2027-28 academic year, according to a presentation Tuesday at the board’s Committee of the Whole meeting. That’s taking the updated cost-of-living adjustment from the governor’s May revision into account. But with possible additional May revision revenue, that deficit could drop to $514 million.

For the 2028-29 academic year, LAUSD is projecting a deficit of $3.581 billion compared with $2.534 billion after accounting for additional revenue from the May revision.

“I want to kind of take us back to a couple of weeks ago when some of us were in Sacramento marshaling some advocacy to various elected officials, the governor’s office themselves,” said acting LAUSD Superintendent Andrés Chait on Tuesday. “I want to mark that I do think that some of the movement that we saw in the May revise can be attributed to the advocacy that folks that are sitting here and that we partnered with vis-a-vis labor really did move the needle, as it were.”

The district’s budget also takes into account agreements reached last month with three unions that will cost $1.2 billion annually.

“We’re not in a place necessarily where we’d like to be. I continue to be concerned about the almost $4 billion that is being withheld in terms of Prop 98,” Chait said. “Those are dollars that are for today’s kids, and therefore should be allocated today, so that they can go out and serve our schools as needed. So, there is still a significant amount of advocacy to come.”