This month, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission announced that it had reached a deal with former Councilmember Kevin de León to pay a fine of $18,750 for repeatedly violating state conflict-of-interest laws.
In the proposed settlement, de León admits that, after personally receiving $155,000 from the University of Southern California (USC) and more than $109,000 from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), he failed to disclose receiving the $109,000 from AHF – twice, failing to correct his non-disclosure when given a chance to fix it. Then, to make matters worse, he voted on three separate City decisions that affected AHF and also voted on one matter that affected USC.
In other words, after being paid more than $250,000 over a roughly 18-month period by two organizations, he turned right around and within a year voted to benefit those entities when they had matters come before the L.A. City Council. That’s four separate violations from which Mr. de León personally profited.
Yet, from the office of L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, there was no response. No public comment. No felony charges. No public hearings. No threats of punishment and even imprisonment. No action for years until after Mr. de León was voted out of office.
Now, compare that to the treatment of L.A. City Councilmember Curren Price, who represents Council District 9.
In 2023, then- District Attorney George Gascón filed felony charges against Price for his votes on matters that were allegedly tied to his wife’s clients — non-controversial items that were unanimously approved by the Council without discussion or dissent.
Following the filing of the D.A.’s charges against Councilmember Price, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said that he and others in City Hall were “scratching their heads” over the charges.
“It’s just unclear. I’ve not seen a felony charge for this type of activity. I’ve seen ethics violations for this type of activity,” Harris-Dawson said, and the Council President is right.
The charges against Price are administrative ethics issues, not criminal misconduct. There’s not an allegation of bribery or self-dealing, and there’s no indication that Price’s votes weren’t in the public interest. Yet, Price faces the threat of jail time and loss of his Council seat, which overwhelmingly elected and re-elected Price.
This isn’t justice. This is selective prosecution. This is cherry-picking. And once again, it’s a popular Black leader, who represents predominantly Black and Brown constituents and stands up for a living wage and works tirelessly to address L.A.’s homelessness crisis, who bears the brunt of that disparity.
While de León quietly resolves multiple ethics violations involving over $250,000 with a fine of less than 10% of what USC and AHF paid him, Price is hauled into court over his wife’s clients without any evidence or even allegations that Price knew of his wife’s tenuous connection to four votes among the thousands of votes Price has cast.
But this is not the only time another Councilmember has gotten preferable treatment from the D.A.’s Office. Councilmember John Lee — named in an FBI probe tied to former Councilmember Mitch Englander, who pled guilty to bribery, is accused by the City Ethics Commission of also being on the trip in which Englander accepted bribes.
Lee is alleged to have received a free two-night hotel stay and $1,000 in casino chips. He also received more than $4,000 in lavish food and alcohol. Nevertheless, Lee, who is Asian and represents a 60% White district, has neither been charged criminally nor threatened with the loss of his seat.
The facts speak for themselves. And the District Attorney’s failure to justify the patently unfair and disparate treatment speaks volumes.
De León admitted he failed to report significant personal income from AHF and USC, both of which directly benefited from his Council votes.
Lee allegedly accepted improper gifts from developers and businesspeople during a Vegas trip paid for by influence-peddlers to a now-convicted former Councilmember who admitted receiving bribes.
Price, by contrast, has been charged criminally with multiple felonies. The crux of the case against Price is that he failed to disclose that his wife was paid by low-income housing developers for whom she had worked. There is no allegation that Price was aware that his wife had any financial connection to the developers when he voted on those matters or that his wife did work for the developers in any given year. This is the very definition of a double standard.
Price’s legacy is clear. He led the push to raise L.A.’s minimum wage. He authored protections for immigrants. He’s delivered housing, parks, and environmental justice for communities long neglected by City Hall. He has shown up for the people time and again.
Yet, despite no history of corruption or deceit, no evidence of personal gain, he faces the full weight of the District Attorney’s Office.
This looks like just another L.A. story: justice isn’t blind—it’s selective. Black leaders representing Black and Brown districts are prosecuted while justice turns a blind eye to others.
As Price’s case moves forward, District Attorney Nathan Hochman faces a defining choice. He can perpetuate the double standard, or he can do the hard thing– the right thing– the just thing, and ensure that justice is applied fairly and equally.
This isn’t about special treatment. It’s about equal treatment.
I’m not suggesting that criminal charges should be brought against de León or Lee. However, as Council President Harris-Dawson has stated previously, these are administrative matters that are properly handled by the LA Ethics Commission. Price and CD 9 should not be victims of a double standard. His case, like de León‘s and Lee’s demands an administrative resolution.
Former DA Gascon’s criminal charges against Councilman Price are clearly a broad governmental overreach. Will new DA Hochman perpetuate this unfair prosecution? Or will he turn the page and bring fairness and common sense to the table.
The people of Los Angeles, and especially District 9 are paying attention. And we will not forget who was punished—and who was protected.
