carol@stormzero.com – Page 2

Sneaky but legal: Voter Beware Part 2

Not all PACs are created equal. There are Federal PACs, Federal Super PACs, Texas GPACs, Texas MPACs, Texas SPACs and others. They all operate under different rules.

A Texas GPAC has to file income and expense reports with the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) every January 15 and July 15. If it’s an election year and they have involvement on behalf of a candidate or issue, they have to file 30-day prior and 8-day prior (to the election) reports. And, subject to certain dollar amounts, a GPAC must file daily reports for receipts and expenditures “during the Daily reporting period”.

A Texas SPAC is like a GPAC, but is focused solely on one issue. Fundraising and expenses are restricted to that issue. Only state-wide issues are reported to Texas Ethics. All others are reported locally.

A Texas PAC can choose to file monthly with the Texas Ethics Commission. They become an MPAC. Here’s where it gets shady. MPACs have to file monthly but don’t have to do the 30-day and 8-day prior reports. They do have to report receipts and expenditures over certain amounts daily for the 9 days prior to an election. That’s election day, not the beginning of early voting.

For example: February is the month before the March 3 primary. MPAC reports aren’t due until March 5, after the election. And, unless the expense (think mailing) is paid for during the 9 day prior reporting period, voters will not even be able to see that expenditure until after the election.

WHO’S PAYING FOR THE MAILERS?

Gerdes Primary Lit 2026 In Stan Gerdes’ case, the following MPACs who sent mailers are monthly reporters: Texas Realtors Political Action Committee, AFC Victory Fund, and Texas Conservative Fund.

Supporting Federal PACs include Alliance for Children and American Energy Action Fund. Their data is available at OpenSecrets.org.

The following are GPACs that have sent mailers for Gerdes: Protect and Serve Texas PAC, Texas Action PAC, Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC.

Candidates spend a lot of money with consultants to manage all this. So….

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Stan Gerdes has spent one MILLION dollars with a consulting firm called Murphy Nasica & Associates from January 11, 2022 through the end of 2024. That’s $1,001,502.91 for consulting and advertising in just 3 years according to TEC records. For 2025 into 2026, the consulting firm is Catalyst Advisors Group. They’ve been paid more than $60,000 in that time.

More than 125 PACs have donated money to Gerdes totaling more than $800,000 in the 4 years since he first ran for the legislature. That doesn’t count contributions from TX House Speaker Dustin Burrows of $38,800 or the $164,000+ from past-Speaker Dade Phelan after voting for each of them for Speaker.

Money, money, money. And all this for a position that pays just $7,200 annually. Again, it’s all legal. But don’t you wonder why so much money is involved for a position in a legislature that meets every other year?

My advice: voter be aware, and beware, when casting your vote.

Sneaky but legal: Voter Beware

UPDATE: Today four Stan Gerdes flyers arrived, all from Political Action Committees OUTSIDE Texas. Ask yourself why Alexandria VA PACs want Stan Gerdes in the Texas House so badly that they’ll do 4 mailings in one day? Two of the four have the same treasurer. Hmmmm…….
(1) from American Energy Action Fund. This is a Federal PAC, Alexandria VA
(2) from Texas Conservative Fund. Established 1/2026 in Alexandria VA.
(3) from Texas Action PAC. Established 9/2025 in Alexandria VA.
(4) from AFC Victory Fund. Established 10/2023 in Alexandria VA.

I’ve written before about the value (or not) of endorsements. I’ve explained my rules for reading campaign literature. I’ve talked about desperate candidates and “going negative”. But these latest revelations really take the cake.

Political Action Committee or PAC. What is it? Texas Ethics Commission defines PACs as follows:

A political committee that supports or opposes two or more candidates who are unidentified or who are seeking offices that are unknown is a general-purpose political committee.
A political committee that supports or opposes candidates, all of whom are identified and are seeking offices that are known, is a specific-purpose political committee.

Reporting requirements are the same. Spending money to influence a question or candidate requires a 30-day prior and 8-day prior election finance report.

What seems to be happening more and more is that PACs are being formed by consultants or people closely aligned with a campaign. They use names that include words like “Conservative” or “Safety” or “Protect”. Those names appear in the “Paid for by” and the average voter who doesn’t have time to spend hours researching a PAC think the organization and its support are a big deal.

In reality, it’s all marketing to sell you on a candidate.

At the very least, check to see if they have a website. Check the address of the organization. Visit Texas Ethics where you can download a list of active PACs. Choose “Search/View a Filed Report”, then “List of Active PACs”.

Download that Excel sheet, filter for PACs started in 2026 and you’ll find 78 of them. That’s right. SEVENTY-EIGHT PACs have been formed in Texas just since the start of 2026.

Let’s take the mailer that arrived a few days ago from “Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC”. That PAC was started January 31, 2026. It’s address is Dallas TX. It’s treasurer is Marshall C. Bumpus with an address of 8558 Katy Freeway Ste 105, Houston TX 77024.

Any idea how much it costs to mail such a piece? Thousands!

But cleverly, this PAC, formed in January, mailed this piece AFTER the required “30-day prior” financial filing. Here’s a copy of that filing for this PAC: No income, no expenses, no candidate supported, NOTHING. All zeros. Yet, this glossy mailer supporting Stan Gerdes shows up in our mailboxes.

Complete shenanigans meant to deceive YOU, the voter.

If a candidate is willing to play these games, use these cleverly-created PACs to make you think they’re a very popular candidate, will that person also play these same games in Austin? You can bet on it. It directly points to the candidate’s character: they’re willing to deceive.

Drain the swamp means drain the swamp. It means voting for honest leadership, not clever gamesmanship.

Your vote. You decide. My vote will go to Tom Glass, supported by individuals not cleverly-created, out-of-district PACs.

Read Between the Lines

Original post published Feb 13, 2024. Reprinted because it’s applicable for the 2026 election cycle.

People collect things. I collect campaign literature. I have campaign literature going back probably 30 years. Some is good; some is awful; some is clever; some really, really boring. Some has colors that are just atrocious. Some was done with nary a thought for the low-vision user. Some is just evidence the candidate doesn’t know what they’re doing, or worse, why they’re running.

Campaign literature is sales literature. The candidate is selling you on why they’d be the best in the position. Here are my four rules when it’s campaign time: Don’t be fooled or swayed by photographs in the mailers; Know what the candidate can and cannot do in office; Read carefully; Find and research the legally required “paid for by”.

Rule #1: Don’t be fooled or swayed by photographs in the mailers.

Some candidates use photos of themselves with their families or children. Why? To tug at your heart strings… “Oh isn’t that cute!” Cute isn’t what you need from an elected official. Candidates need conviction and back-bone. They need to be strong, not sway the way the wind blows. They don’t need to be cute.

Carol Spencer with Monica Crowley Why do some of them use photos with famous elected officials? To make you think that person supports their candidacy. But do they? This is Monica Crowley and me a few years ago at a GOP event. Having a photo with her didn’t mean she endorsed my candidacy. The same is true of photos with Kellyanne Conway, Rudy Guiliani, Sarah Palin, Ken Paxton, Sid Miller, Governor Abbott and so many others with whom I’ve been photographed over the years. Photos with famous politicos, unless accompanied by the words “Endorsed by [name of person in photo]”, should be interpreted as manipulative, meant to make the candidate look important or to make the reader think that person has endorsed the candidate.

A list of endorsements by others, but not the person in the photo, when used together is pure deception. Back to top

Rule #2: Know what the candidate can and cannot do in office.

Someone running for a legislative position cannot do anything without a majority vote of the body in which they serve (city council, TX House, TX Senate, US House, US Senate). They cannot fix the border or cut government spending. And usually, the executive (mayor, governor, president) has to sign any passed legislation to make it law.

Someone running for an executive position can only do that which the charter or constitution allows. And, a great deal of what is allowed requires a vote of the legislative body: budgets, capital spending for example.

This is called “checks and balances”.

When an incumbent running for re-election says they accomplished this or that, no they didn’t. They cast one vote for legislation to make that happen. Perhaps they swayed colleagues to do the same. But in the end, without a majority vote and a supportive executive, nothing they support will ever come to pass.

And, remember what position they’re running for… a mayor cannot close the border, fund medicare or fix social security issues. A congressman can’t get local roads paved. Back to top

Rule #3: Read carefully

Beware the use of “conservative”. Does a true conservative support Democrat chairs in the legislature? Does a true conservative celebrate being endorsed by staunch Democrats? Does a conservative group endorse candidates who previously voted Democrat?

There’s a big difference between “voted to close the border” and “closed the border” but you’ll see both on campaign literature.

“Most experienced” is something else you’ll often see. If you don’t know what the requirements of the position include, how will you evaluate “most experienced”? If the person has always been a chief executive, but is running for a legislative position, that person probably does not have the requisite experience. A chief executive calls the shots. A legislator must count votes for bill passage and must sway a majority to his/her line of thinking. These are very different skill sets. Back to top

Rule #4: Find and research the legally required “paid for by”

All campaign advertisements must include who paid for them. This is critical to know. Did the candidate (well, actually, the candidate’s donors) pay for the mailer? Did some PAC (political action committee) pay for it?

If a PAC paid for it, ask yourself what that PAC expects to get for the expenditure of funds. Mailers are very expensive: design, printing, mailing costs. A county-wide GOP mailer can easily cost $5,000.

Do an online search for the PAC itself and see what it’s about. Go to OpenSecrets.org for Federal PACs and see who else got money from that PAC. Go to Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) for State PACs.

This is also true of the various emails requesting money. Where’s it going? Watch carefully. Sometimes something will appear to be for a candidate, but the money you donate is going elsewhere. Be careful! Back to top

Desperation

Candidates go negative when they think they’re losing. It never fails. They twist facts, publish half-truths, all to make their opponent look like the devil himself (or herself). Instead of explaining to voters why they themselves are best for the job they seek, they want voters to think the worst of their opponent.

I’ve been involved in campaigns since 1987. I’ve run 13 of my own campaigns and lost only one. I’ve been the target of some pretty nasty opposition. So, I know what I’m talking about here.

1995 Primary Flyer This is a mailer sent town-wide by my opponent for mayor in 1995. These four statements are carefully worded to manipulate the voter. Note the use of bright red and “X” next to each one. Add in the scowling photo (taken when council members were joking around one day) and you’ve got a pretty negative piece.

No, we didn’t vote to raise people’s taxes 27%. We voted for budgets that had increased revenue due to increased development. That huge condo development? It was ordered by the Supreme Court after nearly 10 years of fighting against it. I was treasurer of a citizens group that led that fight.

FYI: Voters saw through this and elected me mayor by a 3:1 margin.

This is negative campaigning. No references. No ordinance numbers. No citations. Just twisted statements to manipulate voters.

You’ve likely received more than a few examples of this with the numerous mailers attacking Tom Glass. They are from Stan Gerdes and the special interest PACs supporting him.

Same story in each one.

Gerdes negative mailer You’re supposed to believe that anyone who runs against an incumbent, Governor Abbott in this case, risks “handing [that office] to liberal Democrats”. Is Stan against giving you a choice in a primary? Sure sounds like it.

You’re supposed to believe that the thousands of dollars contributed to Tom Glass are forced. What do campaign contributions have to do with the job of TX House member anyway? Nothing. So why is he raising the issue?

You’re supposed to believe that Tom’s a neo-Nazi because of donations from an unnamed PAC. Why not name the PAC? Likely Stan’s concerned about a lawsuit.

On the other side of the coin, you read that “Stan passed”, “Stan banned”, “Stan stopped”. No, Stan did not do any of those things. Stan voted along with many other TX House members. Sharia Law has not been banned. Islamic developments have not been stopped.

There are those who think that making others look bad makes them look good. That’s exactly what negative campaigners hope to do. They know you won’t take the time to research their statements. They “walk the fence without falling off”, stating things in such a way that they’ll pass legal muster, but they’ll also manipulate people into voting for them. They pay a lot of money to campaign consultants to do just that.

As I’ve said before: beware campaign literature. Most especially, beware negative campaign literature. In fact, just throw it in the trash. It’s worthless to your vote decision-making.

Your Vote is Yours, not Theirs

Two years ago, I wrote a column on candidates citing their endorsements.

This year, let’s discuss the entities who make endorsements. What’s the value of those? Well, it depends.

Did the organization interview all candidates for an office?

If not, did the organization indicate that they did not?

Did the organization send a questionnaire to all candidates?

If not, did the organization state that they did not?

Did the organization provide an explanation for their choices?

We’re going to use the email sent out from Bastrop County Conservatives with their list of endorsements as an example. The BCC website states:

Process

A BCC committee sources, identifies and meets with potential candidates for office and meets with declared candidates in order to consider them for support and endorsement by BCC. Our Leadership Team then votes to determine which candidates BCC will endorse.

Did the organization interview all “declared candidates” for an office?
BCC did not interview all “declared candidates”. If the organization didn’t interview all candidates for an office, they can’t possibly know which candidate most closely aligns with their values.

If they did not interview all “declared candidates”, did they indicate that they did not?
BCC did not indicate that they failed to interview all “declared candidates”. A simple statement under the endorsement like “We did not (or ‘We were unable to’) interview candidate A or candidate B” helps lend credibility to the endorsement.

Candidates for Texas Attorney General, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Bastrop County Judge, Bastrop County Precinct Chair 1004 (and possibly other races) were not interviewed or even contacted.

The list below doesn’t say that so how would voters know?

Did the organization send a questionnaire to all candidates?
BCC did not send a questionnaire. Another PAC invites all candidates for an interview. If a candidate doesn’t respond, oh well. The candidate had a chance and didn’t take it. If the candidate is non-responsive, they can’t expect an endorsement. That’s fair. Just ignoring candidates for an office, then endorsing some alleged favorite, is of no value to voters.

If they did not send a questionnaire to all “declared candidates”, did they state that they did not?
There is no statement indicating whether all candidates were interviewed or sent a questionnaire. The “process” BCC describes on their website leads the voter to believe that all “declared candidates” were interviewed. But they were not.

Did the organization provide an explanation for their choices?
BCC provides no explanation of how it decided who to endorse. There is not one sentence that explains what about a particular candidate caused them to endorse that candidate.

What good, then, are these endorsements?
None. Personally, I think voters need to know why a candidate was chosen for endorsement, what makes that person more fit for the job than any of the other candidates.

BCC (and any other PAC that provides a list without explanation) thinks GOP voters are lemmings and should just vote for whomever BCC endorses.

The conclusion of my April 22, 2024 blog post bears repeating:

Never be a lemming. Just because this group or that says “vote for our list of candidates” or worse yet, “take our list to the polls with you”, that’s not what you should do in a primary, runoff, or uniform (May non-partisan) election.

Expect information. Better yet, demand information or refuse to be a lemming. Your vote is yours, not theirs.

A Failure of Responsibility

Since when do elected officials, representatives of the people (allegedly), ignore constituents? When I served in office, my goal was more communication with the public, not less (or in this case, none).

Even in the late 90’s when websites were just getting started, I created one for our town, complete with email access for the public. I started a township newsletter. I started “Mayor’s Open Office Hours” once a week in the evenings to meet with anyone who wanted to come in and chat. Whether the comments were positive or negative, I responded. That’s what elected representatives are supposed to do.

List of emails included on first email Why, then, when I emailed every member of the Bastrop ISD Board of Trustees, did I only hear back from the Superintendent of Schools? Someone obviously forwarded my email to her since I didn’t include her in the original email.

Not one elected school board member responded to my first email sent before the day of the protest! Not one elected school board member or the superintendent responded to my email the day of the protest either.

Let’s say I own a manufacturing business. I pay for the physical plant and equipment plus the salaries and benefits of the employees. Then, one day a bunch of them decide to take to the streets to protest some issue. They don’t protest at lunch time. They protest mid-morning. My business cannot continue as usual. I’ll limp along with fewer employees so I don’t have to shut down, but output won’t be the same.

This is exactly what these students did. And, now, without severe repercussions, they have learned the lesson that they can just walk out, ignore their responsibilities, and have little to no repercussion for doing so. The penalty is some checkbox that they were absent that day.

When my employees walk out, I still have to pay for the building, the equipment, the heat, the lights, the staff at all levels. When students walk out, taxpayers still have to pay for the school buildings, the heat, the lights and the staff at all levels.

The educational output is not the same because these students aren’t participating in classes. Class isn’t a one way street with the teacher having a megaphone. Class involves interaction and that is lost not only for those who protested but for those who remained behind.

Perhaps our elected school board representatives think they can hide behind their silence on this issue. To me, their silence screams loudly that they approve of this walkout.

The next Bastrop ISD meeting is Tuesday February 17 at 5:30. I encourage y’all who are furious about these protests to attend and speak out.

“The Board of Trustees holds Regular Board Meetings the third Tuesday of every month beginning at 5:30 p.m. at the Jerry Fay Wilhelm Center for the Performing Arts, 1401 Cedar Street, unless otherwise posted. Meetings of the Board of Trustees are by law open meetings, and the public is welcome and encouraged to attend.”

This is not a first amendment rights issue. These students could have exercised their first amendment rights after school, on a Saturday or Sunday.

This is a lesson in responsibility. Every participant, be they students, teachers, administrative staff or elected school board members, have failed. Sadly, this is just another “F” in the grading of Bastrop ISD.

Tax Dollars Up In Smoke

Below is a portion of a post behind a parent-only section of the Bastrop ISD website. It was shared on a public FB group. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this post because I don’t have children in the district. But the portion I’ve read says to me the response of the district is completely inadequate.

UPDATE: I sent a copy of this blog post to the BISD Board of Trustees. I was assured by Superintendent Dr. Kristi Lee that “students who skip school for a protest or for any other reason are disciplined according to the Student Code of Conduct.” I thank Dr. Lee for her prompt response. I hope parents and students who support this walkout understand that there are consequences.

Bastrop ISD has nothing to crow about. Four schools with F ratings. Three schools with D ratings. Seven schools with C ratings, including 2 high schools. Only one school each with an A or B rating… both high schools. (2024-25 TEA ratings)

I do not pay taxes so children can leave school for a protest. I do pay a boatload of taxes to educate Bastrop children.

I attended high school in the late ’60s and college in the early ’70s. Think Vietnam. We did not walk out during school hours. Political protests? I’ve always taken a vacation day from work to do so on my time. And I’ve attended a lot of them.

Students: want to protest? Do so on your own dime, on your own time. Saturday? Sunday? Be my guest. But on my dime you should be in school, learning.

“It’s important to note that this walkout is not sanctioned or organized by our school or the District.” Great, but now that you know about it, stopping students from leaving school for this purpose is your job.

If you do nothing but tell parents they need to speak to their kids, but allow students to leave, you are abdicating your authority over taxpayer-funded assets and the trust parents put in you for the safety of their children. You are supporting mob behavior and peer pressure. You are risking students being injured off school grounds while they are supposed to be in school, opening BISD to lawsuits. You aren’t doing your job(s), pure and simple.

You need to make it clear to students that you are in charge, that taxpayers don’t give their hard-earned money to pay for protests, and that actions have consequences.

I hope the portion of this Parent Square post that is not included states that any student leaving regularly scheduled classes and/or district property for this purpose will be considered truant and the consequences for that behavior will be applied. Anything less is unacceptable.