Category: elections

Because you asked

I’ve been asked quite a few times who I recommend on the ballot. I’ve written a lengthy endorsement for the Attorney General’s race. Since tomorrow is election day, I’m going to share a few other recommendations.

US SENATE
Ken Paxton. Paxton has been a bulldog for Texans and Texas Values in his role as Attorney General. His opponents have not. Texas desperately needs a strong voice representing conservative Texans in the US Senate.

US HOUSE – CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 27
Michael Cloud. Michael Cloud is a strong Texas conservative and votes accordingly. He has earned positions on the Appropriations Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He deserves to be returned to Congress.

GOVERNOR
“Doc” Pete Chambers. Governor Abbott has, overall, done a good job for Texas. However, his endorsement of legislators based on one vote (School Choice) was inappropriate. I loved his bussing of illegals throughout the country as it brought that issue front and center for places that weren’t feeling our pain. I didn’t like his Covid decisions. Keeping big box stores open and forcing small businesses to close was unacceptable. Forcing bars to close because more than 50% of their revenue was alcohol while allowing restaurants to open and serve lacked consistency. Too many appointments and decisions seem to be made due to campaign financial support and I oppose that. Doc has said he will not appoint people to positions if they donate large amounts of money to his campaign. Refreshing.

LT GOVERNOR
Perla Hopkins. When Dan Patrick pushed for half a billion dollars for the movie industry every 2 years, he lost my vote. Texas Scorecard explained “The Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Fund would receive $500 million every two years over the next decade, amounting to $2.5 billion by the 2034-2035 biennium.” If I wanted to support that industry, I’d go to the movies. I’m frankly sick of dolling out tax money to the favorite industry of the day…. especially one that has no impact on my quality of life.

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Aaron Reitz. I’m strongly endorsing Aaron Reitz for Attorney General. Not only is he Ken Paxton’s choice for the next AG, but he has the tenacity, core values, and strength of character to protect Texas and to manage over 4,000 employees. Read my entire endorsement.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PLACE 3
Lesli Fitzpatrick. Lesli is the most qualified candidate. She has a broad range of legal experience including significant criminal courtroom experience. She had her own legal practice, has worked for the State of Texas in a position that provided extensive knowledge of the Texas prison system. This race is for a seat on the highest criminal court in Texas, the one that reviews every death penalty case. Lesli is a solid conservative Republican. With her criminal courtroom experience, Lesli is the best choice.

TEXAS HOUSE DISTRICT 17
Tom Glass. If you’ve been to your mailbox lately, you’ll understand this endorsement. More than 125 Political Action Committees have donated to Tom’s opponent. Texans for Lawsuit Reform has donated well over a quarter of a million dollars to Tom’s opponent. If you want a legislator that answers to the big money donors, vote for the other guy. But if you want a legislator who fights for conservative Texans in his district, vote for Tom Glass.

BASTROP COUNTY JUDGE
Don Loucks. I was shocked when, at a candidate forum, our current County Judge had to ask the emcee what an NGO is. What?? He’s reviewing, voting for, and presiding over a multi-million dollar budget that includes tax dollar payments to NGOs and he doesn’t know what one is. He struggles to run a meeting as seen by those who were at the last County Commissioner’s meeting: taking testimony after an item had already been tabled. That violates Robert’s Rules.

Don’s opponent has shown that he does not have the skill set to make decisions for a county whose population is exploding. The County Judge literally has the lives of over 100,000 Bastrop County residents in his hands. We need a leader trained in emergency management, who understands budgets and taxes, who is conversant with the public safety needs of a growing Texas county. We need a strong, conservative leader and that’s Don Loucks.

Bought?

Did you see when Stan said on Facebook that he didn’t have any idea some of these mailers were coming from PACs until they arrived in his mailbox? Now that the 8-day prior to the election reports are out, we have a broader view of where the money is sourced.

Stan’s consulting company (Catalyst Advisors Group LLC) is also the consulting company for Protect and Serve Texas PAC. This PAC received $15,000 from Texans for Lawsuit Reform. They’ve sent several mailers for Stan.

Then there’s the Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC. In our last post, we told you their only report to Texas Ethics showed they had no money. Zero.

Their 8-day report is very revealing. This PAC received $1.6 MILLION on February 5 this year. Yes, that’s right. Just 21 days ago, Texans for Lawsuit Reform put $1.6 MILLION into Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC. They are the sole donor to this PAC. They then spent $692,762.63 on mailers. They failed to list the amount spent on each candidate, but Stan was a recipient, not once, but three times.

Candidates also have to file an 8-Day prior (to the election) report. We’ve already discussed the donations to Stan Gerdes from PACs in Sneaky but Legal Part 1 and Part 2.

The 8-day prior report covers just 30 days: Jan 23, 2026 – Feb 21, 2026.

Gerdes took in a whopping $549,682.65 in donations in that one month, overwhelmingly from Political Action Committees, not from district constituents.

Has someone been working the phones to raise money from Texas PACs and across the country to save his seat? Is Gerdes getting very nervous about the challenge from Tom Glass? This is a very long list of PAC donors directly to Gerdes in just 30 days.

  • Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC $237,448 (does not include their donations to PACs that sent mailers for Gerdes);
  • Weekley, Richard (co-founder Texans for Lawsuit Reform) $2,500;
  • Texas Conservative Majority PAC $67,750;
  • Dustin Burrows Campaign $50,000;
  • Protect and Serve Texas PAC $35,150.89;
  • Texas REALTORS PAC (TREPAC) $28,842.34;
  • Associated Republicans of Texas Campaign Fund $19,259.83;
  • Troutman Pepper Locke LLP $5,473.25;
  • Texas House Republican Caucus PAC $5,000;
  • TX Diamondback Energy, Inc. PAC $4,000;
  • Texas Building Branch Asso General Contractors PAC $2,500;
  • Koch Industries, Inc. PAC (KOCHPAC) $2,500;
  • Rural Friends of Texas Electric Cooperatives $2,500;
  • Pape-Dawson Engineers PAC $2,500;
  • Texans for Reasonable Solutions PAC $2,000;
  • Texas Dairymen PAC $2,000;
  • Delisi Communications PAC $2,000;
  • Texas Manufactured Housing Assn. Committee For Responsible $2,000;
  • Texas Food & Fuel Assn. PAC $1,500;
  • Texas Society Of Anesthesiologists PAC $1,500;
  • AT&T Texas PAC $1,000;
  • Beer Alliance of Texas PAC $1,000;
  • Charter Schools Now PAC $1,000;
  • Congress Ventures LLC $1,000;
  • ConocoPhillips SPIRIT PAC $1,000;
  • Consulting Engineers PAC $1,000;
  • The American Electric Power – Texas – Committee for Responsible $1,000;
  • EYE PAC of the Texas Ophthalmological Assn $1,000;
  • Houston Police Officers Union PAC $1,000;
  • K & L Gates LLP Committee for Good Government $1,000;
  • Germania Farm Mutual PAC $1,000;
  • Gulf States Toyota Inc. State PAC $1,000;
  • H B Strategies (Jefferson City MO) $1,000;
  • Mike Toomey & Associates $1,000;
  • Moak Casey PAC $1,000;
  • NRG Energy Inc. PAC $1,000;
  • Stan Schlueter Consulting $1,000;
  • Texas Farm Bureau AGFUND $1,000;
  • Texas Optometric PAC $1,000;
  • Texas Pipeline Assn PAC $1,000;
  • Tenaris Global Services (USA) Corp. PAC $1,000;
  • Texas Nurse Practitioners PAC $1,000;
  • PNM Responsible Citizens Group (Albuquerque NM) $750;
  • Greenberg Traurig, P. A. PAC (Albany NY) $750;
  • Texas Chemistry Council/Assn. Of Chemistry Alliance FREEPAC $500;
  • Texas State Assn. Of Fire Fighters Action Committee $500;
  • ExxonMobil Corp PAC $500;
  • Hochheim Prairie PAC $500;
  • Longbow Consulting Partners LLC $500;
  • ONEOK Inc Employee PAC (Tulsa OK) $500;
  • P. John Kuhl Jr., PC $500;
  • Sampson Public Affairs, LLC $500;
  • Texas Dental Association PAC $500;
  • Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P. $500;
  • Liriano Motors LLC $250;
  • Texas Conservative Coalition PAC $40;

After the 8-day prior report, daily reports over a certain amount of contribution and expenditure are required. Gerdes reported this daily contribution: AFSCME Texas Correctional Officers PAC $5,000.

Ask yourself when you vote: who will Stan represent in Austin: you or these PACs? If your issue conflicts with their priorities, with whom will he vote? The answer is clear if he wants to stay in elected office (or move higher up the ladder which requires more and more money).

Think about it before you cast your vote.

Financials~Local Races

DEMOCRATS WITH OPPONENTS

Dock Jackson: County Judge: Hasn’t filed one report for this election cycle: no Jan.15; no 30-day prior; no 8-day prior. Hasn’t even filed a treasurer appointment for this race.

Tamara McIntyre: JP1: Hasn’t filed one report: no Jan.15; no 30-day prior; no 8-day prior. Hasn’t even filed a treasurer appointment.

Ruth Todd: JP2: Did not file 30-day prior or 8-day prior. Did file a report that she had exceeded the modified reporting limit.

Rachel Turman-Smith: JP4: Hasn’t filed one report: no Jan.15; no 30-day prior; no 8-day prior. Hasn’t even filed a treasurer appointment.

REPUBLICANS WITH OPPONENTS

Don Loucks: County Judge: All required reports filed.

Gregory Klaus: County Judge: All required reports filed.

Holly Cox: District Clerk: All required reports filed.

Ward Northcutt: District Clerk: No 30-day prior or 8-day prior report filed. All other required reports filed.

Sarah Loucks: District Clerk: No 8-day prior report filed. All other required reports filed.

Tammy Batot: District Clerk: All required reports filed.

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 2026In 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.

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 CrowleyWhy 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 FlyerThis 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 mailerYou’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.