Laura Richardson's driving for dollars *
She may have defaulted on mortgages and lost a home in foreclosure, but that hasn't stopped Rep. Laura Richardson from driving in style and at great expense, courtesy of the taxpayer. The lease on the Long Beach Democrat's 2007 Lincoln Town Car costs about $1,300 a month -- the most expensive lease of any member of the House of Representatives, reports the Daily Breeze. Richardson's monthly lease, paid by the federal government, is much larger than the $400 to $800 a month that other House members pay, according to a taxpayer group.
While Richardson has leased the vehicle only since last fall, it already been involved in one traffic accident while being driven by a staff member. In addition, Long Beach police ticketed the car in January for illegal parking, a ticket that has gone unpaid.
The congresswoman has had a spotty record with government-issued autos in the past:
When she was a councilwoman in Long Beach, she crashed her BMW, abandoned it at a body shop, failed to pay a prior repair bill, and then racked up 30,000 miles on a city-owned hybrid in one year -- apparently violating a policy against personal use of city cars.
-- Jesus Sanchez
Photo: A 2003 Lincoln Town Car. Credit: Ford Motor Co.
* Updated to include Richardson's party affiliation


What a disgrace to her supportors and the State of California! Vote the bum(s) out, come November!!!
Posted by: mike dorsey | June 30, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Ummm...the average lease payment on a NEW BMW 750Li (Stretch wheel base sedan) is about $1200. The BMW costs about $88k. Who in their right mind pays $1300 a month for a LEASED Lincoln Towncar? She should be fined for stupidity!
Posted by: AutoXpert | July 01, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Someone please tell me why this scofflaw is not in jail? It must be true, democrats are immune from the law. So much for the most ethical congress in history. I don't want to hear another Democrat carp about Republican criminals again. We're under the seven run rule and the dems win in a runaway. Not even the worst Republicans can match the corruption of this Democrat congress. Imagine what it will be like with Ears in the White House? $10 gas and all the dirt you can eat.
Posted by: John Lindsay | July 01, 2008 at 01:02 PM
This woman is a sleazeoid. She's is the epitome of why people are so thoroughly disgusted with Congress. If she were anyone else, she'd be in jail. What a piece of work!
Posted by: Glennis | July 01, 2008 at 01:13 PM
What is her party affiliation? You neglected to mention it in your story.
Posted by: huerfano | July 01, 2008 at 01:57 PM
She sums up the mindset of most congressmen/women. Above the law, in it for themselves and special interests. Because people continue to vote for this manure, it will only get worse and she'll be replaced by someone as bad if not worse. Secondly, the two party system is broken, they are so much alike these days, you screwed with either.
Posted by: James M | July 01, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Why is it that if it is a democrat the party affiliation is not mentioned, but if it is a republican it is mentioned thru out the article
Posted by: mgs | July 01, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Congresswoman Richardson is a Democrat
Posted by: Greg Winchell | July 01, 2008 at 02:13 PM
If the party affiliation is left blank, you can bet the person in question is a Dem. You can bet if this was a republican that fact would be in the headline. I don't know who disgusts me more, Richardson or the Bias so evident at theTimes.
Posted by: Bruce | July 01, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Mentioned thru out the article? If it is a Republican, it is in the headline above the fold, followed by rehashes of every Republican scandal for the last 100 years.
Posted by: Mike M | July 01, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Hey, if your homes were being foreclosed on and you had to spend all your time running from creditors and avoiding subpoenas, wouldn’t you be racking up a lot of miles, too?
Posted by: Anon | July 01, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Race card in 3, 2, 1....
Posted by: twolaneflash | July 01, 2008 at 03:32 PM
It is amazing that anyone is still surprised when a Democrat's party affiliation is not mentioned in negative articles. Of course this woman is a Democrat. How do I know? Because it's not written anywhere.
Posted by: Mark | July 01, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Well, obviously she needs a big car since she'll probably need to live in it since she can't keep a house!
Posted by: Mar | July 01, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Theres plenty of people JUST LIKE HER out there. Whats amazing is that her constituents put up with it w/ a Representative. They see a "D" next to her picture, confirming she is black, and thats all that matters....African Americans don't see the benefits of voting GOP, I get it. But you can put up a credible candidate in the primaries and get rid of this idiot....In fact, w/ all the national headlines, I believe thats exactly what the Dems will do. And good riddance!
Posted by: Dave | July 01, 2008 at 08:48 PM
40 acres and a mule?
Posted by: jnorv | July 01, 2008 at 10:35 PM
And not one freekin' word about this bottom feeding slutbag in the MSM. OK, a casual mention, ABSENT her party affiliation the LA Times, well gag me with a congressional pension!
Thank God for the internet.
No the hell wonder congress sucks!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Dave Malone | July 02, 2008 at 04:12 AM
She's a democrat. That says it all. Democrats are for High Taxes.. (Except for themselves), freedom of Speech (Only if it is Marxist Approved Speech they agree with) and hypocricy at immeasurable levels.
Posted by: Mark Douglas | July 02, 2008 at 06:15 AM
This woman is really unbelievable. Then again, shouldn't congress have a cap on the lease amount the reps can take out? Hell, in private companies they don't let you expense things over a certain limit. I guess it's taxpayer's money and they don't care. They work on raising taxes anyway so they can lease more expensive cars.
Posted by: The Baglady | July 02, 2008 at 01:00 PM
Isn't Richardson pretty much a poster child for this Congress? But, what's more disturbing is how we've ended up with our 2 Presidential candidates from this same Congress.
Posted by: Theresa | July 02, 2008 at 02:08 PM
I looked in vain for her party affiliation. Since you did not see fit to mention it, I naturally assumed she is a democrat because if republican, it would have been part of the headline and mentioned in every other sentence.
Posted by: Barbara McMahon | July 03, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Hmmmm. Name that party. How odd it isn't mentioned.
Posted by: Beej | July 03, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I suppose it's a step in the right direction that the LA Times is reporting this at all, given that she's a Democrat.
Posted by: JEM | July 03, 2008 at 11:01 AM
AutoExpert wrote:
"The BMW costs about $88k. Who in their right mind pays $1300 a month for a LEASED Lincoln Towncar? She should be fined for stupidity!"
That made me wonder from whom she's leasing this car. How much you wanna bet there's a relative involved on the other end?
It's not just Congress. Government workers in general have become our new
"Privileged Class". Funny how these middle class people go to Washington or their state capitol and come home millionaires .
Posted by: jeanneb | July 03, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Funny how her party affiliation is presumably "irrelevant" to the story (that would be the only possible defense as to why it is absent). I wonder how irrelevant a similarly situated Republican's party affiliation would have been.
Another quality reporting job from our friends in L.A.
Posted by: that_guy | July 03, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Rather than criticizing the Times for failing to mention that the congresswoman is a Democrat, how about giving it compliments for reporting the news at least? Years of unthinking prejudice and ideological lockstep cannot be undone in a single day. Instead, show some support for the reporter who is already under such grave mental and moral stress for being a recovering Democratheist. This is a brave step in the right direction. Show some support for a complete and successful deprogramming.
Posted by: poknj | July 03, 2008 at 01:01 PM
The people keep voting for her. They get what they deserve, and they deserve what they get.
Posted by: ZZMike | July 03, 2008 at 02:16 PM
shoddy journalism not listing her Party affiliation. O, sorry, she's a Democrat. Just following MSM guidelines afterall. Carry on, nothing to see here.
Posted by: swift boater | July 03, 2008 at 04:04 PM
LA Times bias is showing again. What's the name of her party? Where are the editors?
Posted by: rb cason | July 03, 2008 at 05:03 PM
The reporter is biased? What bull. He pulled this story from ANOTHER NEWSPAPER to share it on this blog. If he was biased, he wouldn't have bothered to write about Laura Richardson in the first place. So relax, all you haters, and go vent your ignorance somewhere else.
Posted by: Ken Stuart | July 03, 2008 at 05:23 PM
Why don't we just ask Jesus why he didn't notate her properly. Jesus? Is it more of a journalistic guidelines are much looser in blogs type thing?
Posted by: Uncle Billy Went to Washington | July 03, 2008 at 06:57 PM
And yet the OTHER NEWSPAPER mentioned party affiliation.
Posted by: selective edit much? | July 03, 2008 at 07:09 PM
No mention that Richardson is a Democrat?
Typical left-wing bias at the LA Times.
No wonder this POS rag of a paper is shedding 250 jobs.
Sam Zell should shut this crap down.
Posted by: Darlene | July 03, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Ahhh, the reporter is not biased, he's just lazy then by pulling another newspapaer's story without crediting the original source or reporter - and simply letting it appear to be his own work?
I'd say thats liberal bias, theft, and unethical behavior by any basic journalistic standard.
LAtimes hacks for Congress!
Posted by: LiberalMedia | July 04, 2008 at 08:28 AM
She's not only Democrat, she is also African-American, but we'd be racist if we mentioned that, wouldn't we? Perhaps we "owe" her a 2007 Lincoln Town Car as a part of reparations, prior to Obama officially approving them if he is elected.
Posted by: Bruce | July 04, 2008 at 04:58 PM
Long Beach Democrat voters must be as life less and unthinking as those '50's Zombies in the B movies. What else could explain Richardson?
Posted by: Josh Epstein | August 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM