I believe this is meant to seem like a lot of money for a photographer, but it’s honestly not anymore in California. Especially not for a famous photographer.
The top salary for a teacher in San Francisco is $97k.
Why does he need a famous photographer?
That should have probably more been the angle they should have taken.
Idk about SF specifically but some other districts go noticably higher once you have been in the system for a while.
For his future presidential run, of course.
The question is more, why is the taxpayer paying for glamour shots that will just end up being used in his future campaigns? At least use campaign funds instead of tax payer money.
As I said in the other comment, the author should have probably made that the angle instead. Naming and shaming is just and only that.
What is this? A paycheck for ants?!
I don’t care, he can use the selfie mode on a potato phone like the rest of us while he’s fucking over the homeless.
So almost enough to afford a studio apartment? Neat!
sick fuck pays this much for vanity while ordering police to stomp out homelessness
This is where the phrase “limousine liberal” comes from.
Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Politico:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/09/gavin-newsom-celebrity-photographer-00173482
