Spencer Pratt, a one-time reality TV star, is receiving a lot of attention (and financial contributions) for his candidacy for Mayor of Los Angeles. Pratt is one of three credible candidates for the office, along with Mayor Karen Bass and a city councilmember, who may be fading in the wake of a poorly-received debate performance.
Pratt was a major player on the early 2000s reality TV show The Hills. Since then, he has not done much of note, that is, until his (and wife and The Hills costar Heidi Montag's) house burnt down in the Palisades fire in January of 2025.
He and Montag started recording a podcast where their home used to be, and his profile began increasing. In his podcast, Pratt started raging against California officials like Mayor Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom for how they handled the fires and related issues (as well talking about other things and promoting Montag's new album).
Pratt and Montag focused on the insufficient insurance payout they received and their inability to rebuild their home. Eventually, they sued the City and a water and power utility. According to the New York Times,
The crux of the Pratts’ suit is that the Palisades fire is a story of mismanagement. If the surrounding hills had been cleared of brush, if the nearby Santa Ynez reservoir hadn’t been empty and offline, if more fire trucks and water tenders had been stationed nearby, the Palisades would still be standing, the suit argues. It is one of dozens against the city, state and insurance companies that are poised to drag on for years and already total tens of billions in claims.
Pratt then officially entered the political scene when he announced his candidacy for LA Mayor on January 7, the one year anniversary of the Palisades fire. As the campaign progressed, Pratt widened his focus to include homeless camps and other populist issues.
Pratt has painted himself as a non-politician -- an outsider. But what qualifies him to be the Mayor in the second most populous city in America?
As Pratt admits, he's not a politician. He has no government experience. He also has little or no experience running anything or managing significant numbers of employees. Additionally, he has had difficulty in managing his own finances, "Despite the loss of their six-figure paychecks, though, the Pratts didn’t slow down their spending, and they blew through their entire $10 million net worth." Things quickly got out of hand due to "extensive list of luxuries included $30,000 shopping sprees, $4,000 bottles of wine, $15,000-a-night bodyguards and a crystal collection worth approximately $1 million."
His campaign website is very light on details about how exactly he plans to address the issues he is focusing on. Instead, he seems to be focused primarily on blaming elected officials for the damage caused by the fire and other problems he perceives in his community. As the New York Times explained,
Pratt has no patience for complicated realities in which there are many factors and no clear villain. He rejects explanations like extreme weather, climate change and the fact that the hills around the Palisades and Malibu have been burning for generations. Instead, he places most of the blame on a handful of politicians that he argues fell down on the job.
It is hard not to sympathize with someone who has lost their home to a disaster, and the urge to blame someone is understandable; however, someone emotionally devastated by loss and who lacks any meaningful experience is not the best person to trust to solve significant, difficult problems.
Maybe the LA Mayor and City Council have done a poor job handling some of the issues highlighted by Pratt, but is the answer to hand power to a reality TV star with no government experience and a bad personal history of handling money? Electing a charismatic outsider has not worked well for the US, and Los Angeles residents should take a long hard look at whether they should take such a risk locally.