Can Melissa Gilbert turn 'Little House ' cred into Congressional win?

Melissa Gilbert announced her run for US Congress on Monday. Her campaign is grounded in economic improvement, while she has been said to owe several hundred thousand dollars in back taxes.

Gus Ruelas/Retuers/Files
Actress Melissa Gilbert answers a question during a panel discussion at the Television Critics Association press tour in Pasadena, January 9, 2007. Ms. Gilbert, best known for playing Laura Ingalls Wilder in the 1970s television show Little House on the Prairie, announced Monday she would run for a US congressional seat in Michigan.

Those who know actress Melissa Gilbert as Laura Ingalls Wilder from her time on the 1970s television show “Little House on the Prairie” may have to adjust their mental image of her. Ms. Gilbert hopes to be known soon as Congresswoman Gilbert.

The actress announced her candidacy for a seat representing Michigan’s 8th district in a tweet Monday afternoon. A Democrat fighting for a traditionally red district, Gilbert has branded herself as an advocate for working class families.

"I'm running for Congress to make life a little easier for all the families who feel they have fallen through the cracks in today's economy," Gilbert said in a statement. "I believe building a new economy is a team effort, and we need to bring fresh voices to the table to get the job done."

She and her husband, fellow actor Timothy Busfield, have lived in Michigan since 2013, when they moved from California to the town of Howell. They now live in Brighton, about 35 miles outside Detroit, her campaign says.

Gilbert has never held public office, but she campaigned for gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer last year, and she is familiar with the title of “president:” she was the head of the Screen Actors Guild from 2001 to 2005. She has also written three books, including "Prairie Tale: A Memoir," a bestseller about her role on “Little House on the Prairie.”

Her campaign has already drawn criticism from current first-term GOP Representative, Mike Bishop. His spokesman, Stu Sandler, called her a “tax cheat,” pointing out that she owes a total of almost half a million dollars in back taxes – $360,000 to the US government and $112,000 to the state of California.

"Melissa Gilbert can afford to have a stylist for her dog, but cannot pay her taxes," Mr. Sandler said in a statement. "Her values our out of whack with the district."

Gilbert told the Detroit News in June her debts were a result of the economy, career problems, and her divorce, and that she had worked out a payment plan with the IRS. But last month, the Livingston Daily Press & Argus newspaper reported that the IRS had filed a lien against her.

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.