Correction: Party Politics in Richardson Elections

In relaying my thoughts on the 2023 Richardson City Council election, I said something that is both factually incorrect and personally embarrassing. I said:

Despite the backing of the Richardson Coalition PAC, [Stephen] Springs couldn't overcome [Dan] Barrios's support of his own from the Richardson Area Democrats PAC. Even though the RC spent money on a mailer endorsing Springs and the RAD only used its Facebook presence and word-of-mouth to promote Barrios, it wasn't enough to get Springs across the line.

Source: The Wheel.

I should have said, "the RAD also spent money on a mailer endorsing Barrios." Then I should have expressed my displeasure with their action.

I regret the error.

H/T to Andrew Laska for catching my mistake.

[Update: July 21, 2023: The Richardson Area Democrats PAC's semiannual report shows a $100 contribution to Dan Barrios's campaign.]

---

I say this is personally embarrassing because it regards a longstanding pet peeve of mine: the trend of turning nonpartisan local elections partisan. I wrote about it in 2019 ("It's All Partisan Now"), where I admitted that both sides do it, state legislators do it, the Governor of Texas himself does it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Now, here in 2023, it happens again and it slipped past my radar. Maybe because I didn't get one of those partisan mailers from the Richardson Democrats PAC that others did. It is a direct mail endorsement in the Richardson City Council race...and the Richardson ISD election for Board of Trustees.

Here's where the story turns from personal embarrassment into a legal matter. I didn't see any in-kind contributions from the Richardson Democrats PAC listed in the campaign finance reports of any of the candidates they endorsed. IANAL, but if the Richardson Democrats PAC were following the law, there probably should have been such notices sent to the candidates they endorsed. And the expenditures should have been included in the Richardson Democrats PAC's own finance report, that is, if they filed one, which they don't seem to have done, either 30-Days or 8-Days before an election in which they are active (which they were in this case). That also appears to be a violation of election law. According to the Texas Ethics Commission:

If a political committee accepts political contributions or makes political expenditures for a candidate or officeholder, the committee’s campaign treasurer must give written notice of the contributions or expenditures to the candidate or officeholder by the end of the reporting period in which the contributions are accepted or the expenditures are made. The notice must include the name and address of the political committee and its campaign treasurer and state whether the committee is a specific-purpose committee or a general-purpose committee. The candidate must report the receipt of such a notice.

Source: Texas Ethics Commission.

In his own campaign finance report, Ken Hutchenrider did include just such a notice from the Richardson Coalition PAC notifying him of an in-kind contribution made by the RC PAC, namely its own mailer. I suspect that if Hutchenrider had received a similar notice from the Richardson Democrats PAC (he was endorsed by both groups — way to go, Ken), he would have listed it in his report. Therefore, I know some PACs are aware of this law and follow it. The Texas Ethics Commission has 30-Day and 8-Day campaign finance reports on file from the RC PAC, unlike the Richardson Democrats PAC.

From all this, it looks to me like the Richardson Democrats PAC did not follow election laws in two important matters. That's another thing about how they operate that I don't like.

If I misrepresented anything here, or misinterpreted the law, I invite correction.