There are lots of not very legitimate candidates out there--ones who are mentally ill, felons, single-issue candidates, or just totally unqualified. It's not a very high bar to get your name on the ballot in a local election.  They probably have a hard time raising money, and for good reason. Why is there always the implication that the ability to raise funds=corruption, sell-out, establishment shill?  More often than not, incumbents are re-elected because their constituents are happy with them.  And there are plenty of examples where election outcomes show that money doesn't buy votes. (Harry Kim, Kaniela Ing, David Ige).  This article is a prime example of irresponsible, lazy journalism that sends an inaccurate message to the public.  "Just tell them what they want to hear" should be Civil Beat's slogan.