Bookmark our site to easily return to stay updated on Shasta County politics!
Outside Influencers: Threatening Democracy in Shasta County
Dr. Douglas Frank: Central Figure in Election Misinformation Debate
Dr. Douglas Frank has become a prominent and controversial figure in election debates, following President Donald Trump’s claims—widely characterized by election officials and independent analysts as false—that the 2020 election was stolen. Frank has built a national profile as an election skeptic, traveling to deliver presentations that critics say amplify misinformation and undermine trust in democratic institutions (Murray & Simon, 2022). Rather than presenting documentation that officials deem verifiable, Frank’s rhetoric has been described by critics as alarmist, encouraging audiences to question electoral outcomes (Pierce, 2024).
Disputed Narratives and Misinformation Claims
Central to Frank’s narrative is his insistence that organizations like the Center for Tech and Civic Life—which received donations from private entities such as Mark Zuckerberg—improperly influenced election outcomes, a theory often referred to as “Zuckerbucks” (Murray & Simon, 2022). Frank contends that electronic voting machines can prematurely reveal vote information, enabling alleged “bad actors” to act before polls close, and he argues that voter rolls should be locally rather than state-managed to protect integrity (Wire, 2023). Election officials and independent experts have publicly rejected these claims as unsupported, including Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, who described Frank’s assertions as easily disproven (Brown & Swaine, 2022).
Investigations and Controversial Associations
Frank’s activities have drawn federal attention. The FBI seized his personal phone during an investigation involving Colorado Clerk Tina Peters, an ally in election-related activism, who later faced charges related to election equipment tampering (Brown & Swaine, 2022). Reporting has linked Frank with high-profile figures such as MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has financially supported election-related efforts (Girten, 2023). According to Girten (2023), during an event in Montana in August 2023, Frank used language that critics characterized as provocative, including a remark to “grab their rifles”; supporters dispute that this constituted advocacy of violence (Girten, 2023).
Mobilizing Activist Networks
A key feature of Frank’s strategy is his cultivation of dedicated followers—often women he labels as “super moms”—who are encouraged to believe in widespread election fraud and tasked with “exposing” issues that election officials say are unsupported (Wire, 2023). Frank’s outreach includes organizing events and working with sympathetic local officials, creating a network through which, critics say, extremist narratives can spread. Analysts argue that this approach broadens the reach of misinformation by presenting it as a grassroots concern (Pierce, 2024).
Influence in Shasta County
Frank spoke in Shasta County, California, addressing the Board of Supervisors on January 22, 2025. During his presentation, he alleged voter fraud and, according to meeting records, did not provide supporting documentation; he urged officials to “uphold constitutional election rights,” a stance that critics argue could conflict with state election statutes (Board Agendas, Minutes, & Videos, 2023). He also made an analogy involving sexual assault that critics described as inappropriate, and he claimed—without verification—that hundreds of ballots were illegally cast. Frank returned in May 2025, appearing alongside Clint Curtis in Redding, continuing to advance claims that election officials have disputed (Pierce, 2024).
Conclusion
In our opinion, Dr. Douglas Frank’s work sits at the intersection of disputed election theories, significant financial backing, and polarizing political advocacy. Critics contend that by combining unverified claims with provocative rhetoric, his messaging undermines confidence in democratic institutions and can encourage extreme responses. From this perspective, his activities—particularly when amplified by local political dynamics in counties like Shasta—may risk the integrity of electoral processes and civic discourse. In my view, Frank functions less as an academic theorist than as a political advocate whose messaging critics say is destabilizing, leveraging public concern to influence citizens and policymakers.
Chriss Street: Financial Disputes and Far-Right Ties Shape Political Rise
Chriss Street has been described as a highly polarizing public figure in Shasta County due to his involvement with New California State, a political organization advocating for the creation of a “51st state” through secession from California (Scheide, 2023). Public reporting identifies this movement as aligned with far-right politics, and critics have labeled it extremist; however, Street and its supporters argue they are promoting constitutional self-governance (Scheide, 2023). Street has been associated with the organization since 2018 and serves as its Chief Financial Officer, according to public reporting (Scheide, 2023). His involvement with a politically controversial movement has raised questions among some residents and elected officials regarding his suitability for roles involving public authority and financial oversight.
Questionable Qualifications and Professional Background
In 2025, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors proposed hiring Street as a healthcare consultant for $150 per hour, up to $40,000 (Harting, 2025). According to his proposal, Street planned to address local physician shortages by proposing a rural medical school and a substance-use treatment facility funded with federal dollars (Pierce, 2025). Reports note that Street’s stated experience in healthcare administration comes from managing a private healthcare business over 25 years ago (Pierce, 2025). While Street maintains confidence in his approach, critics have questioned whether this level and recency of experience provides adequate expertise for advising on large-scale medical infrastructure development.
Documented Financial Controversies
Street’s professional background includes well-documented financial litigation. He served as Orange County Treasurer from 2006 to 2011, a period during which he was ordered by a federal bankruptcy judge to pay $7 million over mismanagement claims related to a bankruptcy trust connected to a trucking company he previously operated (Chamberlain, 2023b). Street disputed the ruling and later won a malpractice lawsuit against his former attorney, but the original judgment reportedly remains unresolved (Chamberlain, 2023b). These legal disputes have raised concerns among some observers about placing him in positions involving fiscal management.
Political Views and Secession Advocacy
Street has frequently appeared on Agenda 21 Radio, hosted by Paul Preston, where he discusses economic strategy and political restructuring related to New California State (Scheide, 2023). In a 2021 public forum, Street stated that he joined the movement after what he considered a “catastrophic” event in California—interpreted by observers as a reference to the COVID-19 economic fallout—creating what he described as “opportune conditions” for political reform (Scheide, 2023). Reporting indicates that Street has advocated reconfiguring governance in Shasta County using corporate models and supports drafting a revised California constitution as a step toward secession (Scheide, 2023). Supporters view this as innovative reform; critics argue it promotes political extremism and destabilization.
Public Scrutiny in Shasta County
Street has been the subject of recent government and public scrutiny. In April 2023, he was provisionally selected as Shasta County Executive Officer, but after a background review revealed what officials described as “concerns,” the Board unanimously withdrew its offer (Battaglia, 2023). Following the decision, Street made allegations of financial misconduct against the county, though these claims were not substantiated by official findings (Chamberlain, 2023b). In March 2023, the Redding Police Department confirmed an investigation involving Street and an incident reported at the Shasta Family YMCA involving a minor; no publicly available record discloses the outcome, and Street has not been charged in connection with the matter (Chamberlain, 2023a).
Conclusion
Based on available reporting, Chriss Street remains a controversial and debated figure in regional politics. His political affiliations, litigation history, and professional background have led to scrutiny from media, elected officials, and members of the public. Given the documented concerns about financial management (Chamberlain, 2023b), unconventional political advocacy (Scheide, 2023), and disputed professional qualifications (Pierce, 2025), Street’s potential involvement in Shasta County government remains a matter of significant public discussion and debate.
Robert Paul Preston: Architect of Far-Right Secession and Conspiracy in California
Robert Paul Preston is widely regarded as a polarizing political figure in Shasta County for his long-standing advocacy of California secession. Formerly active in the State of Jefferson movement, Preston later disassociated from it, citing strategic disagreements. He subsequently founded the New California State initiative, a political separatist effort that has been publicly associated with right-wing populism and rhetoric aligned with the MAGA movement (Shulman, 2018). Preston has been a highly visible spokesperson for secession and has been criticized by opponents and analysts who argue his messaging promotes political division and controversial claims. His activism has drawn both local support and national criticism, bringing increased scrutiny to his political theories and public messaging (Holcomb, 2025).
The 51st State Proposal
Preston’s stated political goal is the creation of a 51st U.S. state made up primarily of California’s rural and conservative-leaning regions, while excluding major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Sacramento (New California Declares Independence From Rest Of State, 2018). Maps published on the New California State website reflect this geographical and ideological divide. Preston argues that the current California government has failed rural communities, which he says are underrepresented and economically neglected. He has claimed secession would return “local control” and economic growth to these regions. Despite these assertions, many legal scholars and state political observers view the proposal as constitutionally unviable and highly unlikely to move forward in the California Legislature (Herenda, 2024).
Controversial Claims and Allegations of Conspiracy
Media reports document Preston’s involvement in promoting disputed, unverified claims about state and national politics. In 2016, he filed a lawsuit alleging “vote dilution” against the State of California. He publicly criticized State of Jefferson members, accusing them of connections to liberal interests—claims he did not substantiate with verifiable evidence (Shulman, 2018). Preston has repeated unverified allegations linking the State of Jefferson members to philanthropist George Soros, part of a broader conspiracy claim that has been criticized for lacking factual support (Holcomb, 2025).
On his program Agenda 21 Radio, Preston has at times hosted guests known for controversial or discredited claims, including Jim Garrow, who has described himself as a former CIA operative. However, no official records confirm Garrow’s alleged CIA affiliation, and his claims have been widely questioned by journalists and researchers (Shulman, 2018).
Preston has also cited a widely circulated photograph of Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler with progressive activist Joan Blades as evidence of alleged political infiltration. However, no independent investigations have supported Preston’s interpretation of this photograph as proof of a covert political agenda (Shulman, 2018).
Election Activism and Secessionist Organizing
Public reporting shows Preston has used election-related narratives to support his political platform. In December 2024, he held a public meeting in Shasta County challenging the legitimacy of the 2024 local election results, alleging fraud without presenting verifiable evidence (Herenda, 2024). Local election officials and law enforcement found no credible evidence of election fraud in response to those claims.
Preston also refers to himself as the “governor” of the proposed New California State, a title he uses symbolically within the movement. On July 12, 2025, supporters of the New California State held a symbolic election with participants from more than 50 California counties (Holcomb, 2025). The election had no legal authority, and state public agencies did not recognize the process.
Public Messaging and Political Impact
Some of Preston’s public messaging has been criticized by political analysts as anti-democratic. For example, one frequently cited social media post associated with him reads: “End democracy. Save the Republic.” Supporters have defended such rhetoric as constitutional advocacy, while critics argue it signals alignment with far-right political extremism (Holcomb, 2025).
Political commentators note that secessionist movements like Preston’s may contribute to political polarization and civic division. While some view his movement as a form of peaceful political protest, others consider it part of a growing trend of extremist rhetoric entering local civic spaces, including in Shasta County.
Conclusion
Robert Paul Preston and the New California State movement continue to play an active and controversial role in regional politics. Preston’s critics express concern about his use of unverified claims, election-related skepticism, and politically divisive rhetoric. At the same time, his supporters view his efforts as a legitimate challenge to state authority and a push for rural representation. Regardless of perspective, Preston’s political activities have sparked significant debate about governance, civic engagement, and the limits of secessionist activism in California.
Mike Lindell: How One CEO Became a National Election Agitator
Mike Lindell, widely recognized as the CEO and public face of the MyPillow brand, has transitioned from a mainstream entrepreneur into a politically influential and polarizing figure closely aligned with former President Donald Trump. In recent years, Lindell has drawn extensive media attention for his public advocacy surrounding the 2020 U.S. presidential election and his promotion of claims alleging election misconduct—claims that have been widely disputed and rejected by election officials and courts (Anguiano, 2023; Bloom, 2023).
Early Life and Personal Background
Lindell’s early life in Minnesota has been extensively documented in media interviews and his own memoirs. He has spoken publicly about his struggles with gambling in his youth and addiction to cocaine and later crack cocaine as an adult. Lindell has frequently attributed his eventual sobriety, achieved in 2009, to faith and prayer (Mike Lindell, 2020).
Before launching MyPillow in 2004, Lindell pursued several small business ventures, including carpet cleaning, restaurants, and bar ownership. MyPillow eventually gained national visibility through direct TV marketing and retail sales. However, in 2017, the Better Business Bureau revoked the company’s accreditation and issued an “F” rating following consumer complaints. Major retailers such as Kohl’s and Bed Bath & Beyond later ended their MyPillow contracts, citing declining sales. Lindell publicly attributed these decisions to backlash over his political beliefs (Bacharier, 2022; Anguiano, 2023).
Controversies Related to Public Messaging
In 2023, Lindell announced a promotional sale featuring a pillow price of $14.88, a number that civil rights watchdog groups note has been used as a symbol by white supremacist organizations. Lindell denied any connection to extremist messaging and stated that the pricing was coincidental (Bloom, 2023). The promotion nonetheless led to public scrutiny because of the historical associations of the number.
Political Engagement and Support for Donald Trump
Lindell has played a highly visible role in conservative politics and has identified himself as a committed supporter of Donald Trump since their first meeting in 2016. He has spoken at political conferences including CPAC and Liberty University, and has appeared at the White House on multiple occasions. Lindell often frames his political support in religious terms, asserting that God chose Trump to lead the nation (Mike Lindell, 2021; Ting, 2023; Tolan et al., 2021).
Election Fraud Allegations and Legal Disputes
After the 2020 election, Lindell became a prominent advocate of election-related allegations claiming widespread fraud. He helped finance nationwide “election integrity” bus tours, produced films alleging foreign interference, and funded legal defense efforts for individuals such as Tina Peters, a Colorado election official who was later convicted for her role in an election security breach (Anguiano, 2023; Bacharier, 2022).
Lindell also made public claims against voting machine manufacturers, alleging foreign hacking and manipulation of election results. These claims were rejected by multiple courts, election authorities, and independent audits (Spencer & Fischera, 2021). Social media platforms removed several of Lindell’s posts for violating misinformation policies, and he was permanently banned from Twitter in 2021 (Vasilogambros, 2024). YouTube removed his three-hour film Absolute Proof for violating policies on election misinformation (Vasilogambros, 2024).
Business, Legal, and Public Controversies
Lindell has been involved in a range of high-profile political and legal disputes. He made financial contributions to the bail fund of Kyle Rittenhouse and pledged financial support toward legal expenses for Tina Peters (Bloom, 2023). In 2020, he promoted oleandrin, an unapproved botanical extract, as a COVID-19 treatment during an appearance at the White House, though medical authorities stated there was no scientific evidence for its use (Mike Lindell, 2021).
Involvement in Shasta County Politics
Lindell’s political activities have also extended into local election administration debates. In March 2023, Shasta County Supervisor Kevin Crye traveled to Minnesota to meet with Lindell to discuss hand-counting ballots and election processes (Anguiano, 2023). Shortly after, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted to terminate its contract with Dominion Voting Systems, a move that aligned with Lindell’s long-standing criticism of electronic voting machines. Lindell associates—including Douglas Frank and Clint Curtis—subsequently became active figures in Shasta County’s election oversight discussions (Mai, 2023; Vasilogambros, 2024).
Conclusion
Mike Lindell’s evolution from businessman to political advocate has generated significant public debate. Supporters view him as a defender of election transparency and religious values, while critics argue that his promotion of election-related claims has amplified misinformation and contributed to distrust in democratic processes. His political influence, including activity in states and local communities such as Shasta County, continues to shape election-related controversies across the country.
Reverge Anselmo: Wealth, Influence, and the Transformation of Shasta County Politics
Reverge Anselmo—heir to a significant family fortune, former Marine, and film producer—has become a highly controversial figure in Shasta County politics. Known for producing the 2004 film Stateside, Anselmo has shifted his focus from Hollywood to political advocacy. His growing influence in local political campaigns has drawn extensive public debate and media scrutiny, prompting concerns about the role of concentrated private wealth in shaping public policy (Nowain, 2021).
From Development Disputes to Political Engagement
Anselmo’s connection to Shasta County began with business interests, including a proposed ranch, restaurant, and winery project near Shingletown. The development was ultimately halted following disputes over zoning and environmental compliance with the county’s Department of Resource Management. Anselmo has stated that he was treated unfairly by county officials, and he has characterized the government’s enforcement actions as politically motivated. County records, however, attribute the conflict to regulatory compliance issues (Scheide, 2021). This dispute marked the beginning of a long-standing public disagreement between Anselmo and county agencies, which later expanded into political involvement.
Significant Political Spending in Shasta County
In 2020, Anselmo reemerged in Shasta County as a major political donor. That year, he contributed $100,000 to the campaign of Patrick Jones in a Shasta County Board of Supervisors race (Pierce, 2025). Over the next two election cycles, Anselmo provided substantial financial support to local political groups, including Recall Shasta and the Shasta County General Purpose Committee (Battaglia, 2022). Between 2020 and 2022, his documented political contributions totaled close to $2 million, a dramatic amount for a rural Northern California county of roughly 180,000 residents (Pierce, 2025). Supporters of Anselmo have praised his engagement as a lawful exercise of political speech, while critics argue his level of influence has shifted the balance of local elections in favor of candidates aligned with his policy priorities.
Alignment With Red, White, and Blueprint
Anselmo has appeared in episodes of Red, White, and Blueprint, a political media project that describes itself as a grassroots movement for government transparency and reform. Reporters and researchers have linked members of the group—including Carlos Zapata, Jon Knight, and Jeremy Edwardson—to right-leaning political activism and local militia communities (Schwaller, 2022). In interviews featured in the series, Anselmo was critical of county code enforcement and stated he would not consider returning to Shasta County unless the Department of Resource Management—the agency involved in his earlier development dispute—was abolished (Nowain, 2021). Observers viewed his comments as reflecting a personal and political conflict with county regulatory authority.
Campaign Finance Violations and FPPC Fine
On July 2, 2025, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) fined Anselmo more than $20,000 for campaign finance reporting violations related to his political donations between 2020 and 2022 (Pierce, 2025). The FPPC concluded that multiple reporting rules had not been followed. Anselmo cooperated with the enforcement process, and there is no public indication of intent to evade disclosure. However, the penalty intensified public discussion about financial transparency, campaign finance compliance, and political influence in local government.
Influence on Local Governance
Anselmo’s financial support helped boost the campaigns of Patrick Jones, Tim Garman, Kevin Crye, and Chris Kelstrom, all of whom later won seats on the Shasta County Board of Supervisors (Battaglia, 2022). Critics argue that the board’s subsequent political direction reflects the preferences of a small group of influential donors, including Anselmo. Supporters counter that these campaign victories reflect legitimate voter dissatisfaction with prior county leadership.
In 2024, the Board of Supervisors appointed Wyatt Paxton, a reported former consultant to Anselmo, as interim Director of the Department of Resource Management, the same agency previously involved in Anselmo’s development dispute (Chamberlain, 2024). The decision drew criticism from some residents and county employees, who questioned whether Paxton’s appointment reflected political favoritism. The Board stated that Paxton was selected based on his experience.
Conclusion
Reverge Anselmo remains one of the most influential—and debated—private figures in Shasta County civic life. His substantial political donations, public advocacy, and ongoing disputes with county agencies have sparked a broader conversation about transparency, campaign finance, and the effects of outside money on local government. Whether viewed as a determined reformer or a disruptive political force, Anselmo has undeniably reshaped the trajectory of Shasta County politics.
Patty and Ron Plumb: Election Activism, Political Influence, and Public Controversy
Patty Plumb and her husband, Ron, have become well-known figures in Shasta County political circles through their involvement in election activism and their participation in local political movements. Their critics argue they have promoted division and distrust in government, while their supporters view them as citizen advocates challenging institutional authority (Preston, 2024; Branson-Potts, 2022). The Plumbs have been active in movements such as New California State, a political effort seeking state partition, and have participated in election-related campaigns alongside figures associated with Mike Lindell and Douglas Frank (Preston, 2024; Branson-Potts, 2022).
Questions of Conflict of Interest
Patty Plumb was appointed as a Shasta County Election Commissioner, a position involving public oversight of elections. At the same time, she has leadership roles in the New California State movement, where she serves as Chair of the Shasta County Assembly and Ron Plumb is listed as a “state senator” on the organization’s website (Preston, 2024). Because New California State advocates secession from California and disputes the integrity of U.S. elections, journalists and election experts have raised concerns about whether her dual roles present a conflict of interest.
Patty Plumb has publicly questioned the integrity of voting machines and voiced allegations of election fraud, though no evidence has been presented to substantiate these claims (Benda, 2025). This has prompted concerns from election professionals about whether her statements could undermine voter confidence in local elections.
Election Rhetoric and Public Conduct
In November 2024, Patty Plumb organized a protest in downtown Redding alleging that the local election had been compromised. She proposed holding a “citizens’ recount” by gathering volunteers at the Redding Civic Auditorium to manually count ballots (Chapman, 2024). However, under AB 969, California law restricts hand-counting of ballots except under specific conditions, making her proposal inconsistent with current election regulations (Pierce, 2024).
At a September 2022 Board of Supervisors meeting, Patty made faith-based political remarks and compared Shasta County’s elections to political resistance struggles such as Tiananmen Square, urging residents to “stand before the tanks” to oppose voting machines (Chamberlain, 2022). Her speeches have been described by observers as emotionally charged and reflective of populist distrust in election systems.
Ron Plumb has frequently echoed similar claims in public meetings. In October 2024, he warned from the Board of Supervisors podium that certifying elections “could be considered treason,” a statement consistent with nationwide narratives promoted by election skeptics (Branson-Potts, 2022). In past public commentary, the Plumbs have also suggested that if “the First Amendment fails,” escalation could follow, referencing the Second Amendment (Chamberlain, 2022). These statements raised concern among community members who interpreted them as potentially inflammatory.
Election Challenges and Local Investigations
In 2022, the Plumbs were linked to a “citizens’ audit” that involved volunteers going door-to-door questioning Shasta County residents about their voter registration status while wearing reflective vests (Solis, 2022). Former County Clerk Cathy Darling Allen issued a public statement warning that the activity risked voter intimidation (Solis, 2022). Plumb supporters argued the audit was lawful civic participation, but election officials stated it violated voter privacy and could mislead residents about official election processes.
The Plumbs have also been connected to Clint Curtis, who used their address on his Shasta County voter registration form while reportedly still registered to vote in Florida, raising questions about residency compliance (Benda, 2025). Curtis has appeared publicly alongside the Plumbs in local election oversight efforts.
Political Messaging and Local Influence
The Plumbs have often framed their election involvement as an effort to uphold “election integrity” and constitutional rights. However, their statements have also amplified unverified claims of systemic election fraud. In 2022, Patty told the Board of Supervisors that voting machines should be “melted down and turned into prison bars”—a phrase that drew widespread local attention and criticism (Potts, 2022).
Their activism has aligned at times with groups such as Red, White, and Blueprint, Moms for Liberty, and other political networks active in Shasta County, contributing to a significant shift in local political discourse. While supporters argue they are exercising free speech and government accountability, critics contend their activities have increased public hostility and distrust in local government.
Conclusion
Patty and Ron Plumb have become influential figures in Shasta County’s political landscape, particularly in matters related to election policy and local governance. Their involvement raises ongoing questions about the impact of contested election narratives, political activism, and potential conflicts of interest within public institutions. Whether viewed as grassroots reformers or sources of political disruption, the Plumbs continue to play a central role in shaping debate over democracy and elections in Shasta County.
Guess Who Is Back Online?
We are caffeinated and ready to ruffle some political feathers!
Shasta Exposed is officially plugged back into the matrix — bandwidth restored, receipts loaded, tea brewing at a brisk 212°F.
If you thought we were done shining a spotlight on corruption, chaos, and questionable county behavior… bless your heart. We were just rebooting.
Let the exposing resume.
Buckle up, Shasta. It’s truth-telling season.