Individuals are being paid to vote for Karen Bass on Skid Row.

Posted by VINCE, Aug 25, 2026Checked Nov 2, 2026

Polygraph verdictFalse

Sources: 3 contradict2 context
Said: 1 time·
Confidence: 85%

VINCEAug 25, 2026

The claim that people are being paid to vote for Karen Bass on Skid Row is contradicted by a tier1 fact-check and LA Times reporting: Lead Stories found the woman in the widely shared video was registered in Inglewood and did not return her ballot, and county election officials found no evidence she voted for Bass for $5.

This claim is about the present, so it is judged as of the day it was checked.

What was said

… They rigged their own primary elections in every presidential election for the last decade: 2016, 2020, 2024. They rigged the primaries against their own voters. Why wouldn't they do it against general election voters? They're ballot harvesting. They're paying off homeless people living on Skid Row for votes for Karen Bass. They're corrupt. There's voter fraud happening all over the place, and the left doesn't want to lock it down because they believe, with a lot of evidence, that they're the beneficiaries of it. …

VINCE · Aug 25, 2026· from the transcriptPost →

What we found

Contradicts. Lead Stories (tier1) checked the viral Skid Row video. Los Angeles County Registrar records showed the woman could not have voted for Bass because she is registered in Inglewood, and she did not return her mailed primary ballot.[1]

Contradicts. LA Times reporting found the fraud claims unfounded. Election experts said one-off cases, even if true, would not change the outcome, and 20 Skid Row residents interviewed said they had not heard of anyone offering money to vote for a specific candidate.[2]

Contradicts. L.A. County election officials responded publicly that there was no evidence the woman voted for Bass for $5, and the Bass campaign called the payment idea 'absurd.' This reporting is reprinted by the Election Law Blog.[3]

Context. Other outlets (Yahoo, Daily Signal) repeated the videos' claims of $2 to $5 payments without independent verification, so their coverage does not corroborate the allegation.[4][5]