Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has opened an investigation into two political action committees, alleging they broke state laws by funding Democrats who fled Texas to block a quorum during a heated redistricting fight. This move signals a broader push to hold accountable those who, in Paxton’s view, undermined the legislative process for partisan gain.
According to Fox News, the probe targets Powered by People PAC, led by former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, and Texas Majority PAC, run by his former staff. Both groups are accused of facilitating travel for Democratic lawmakers who left the state to stall Republican redistricting plans.
Paxton didn’t mince words, stating, “Any Democrat coward breaking the law by taking a Beto Bribe will be held accountable.” While the rhetoric is sharp, the core issue remains whether financial support for absent lawmakers constitutes a legal violation or just hardball politics in a polarized state.
Public records reveal Powered by People PAC has raked in substantial sums, including hundreds of thousands from Middle Seat, a progressive consulting firm, and $100,000 from Simone Coxe, a key backer of O’Rourke’s past gubernatorial run. Additional contributions include over $114,000 and $60,000 from the Harris Victory Fund in early and late 2023, alongside just over $5,000 from Luci Baines Johnson, daughter of former President Lyndon Johnson.
The PAC, which boasts over $3.5 million in cash on hand as of June 30 per Federal Election Commission filings, openly admitted to covering travel costs and $500 daily fines for the absent Democrats. Their website even pitched donations as “100%” supporting “Texas Democrats in their fight against Trump’s power grab,” a claim that raises eyebrows about the line between advocacy and inducement.
Texas Majority PAC, meanwhile, draws heavy funding from George Soros, a figure long tied to Democratic causes. Paxton seized on this, declaring, “If Texas lawmakers are bowing to the Soros Slush Fund rather than the will of the voters, Texans deserve to know,” hinting at deeper concerns over external influence in state politics.
The backdrop to this investigation is a bitter redistricting battle, where Texas Democrats physically left the state to prevent a quorum, effectively halting Republican efforts to redraw congressional maps. Their absence, showcased in public appearances alongside Illinois lawmakers on August 4, 2025, was framed as a stand against partisan gerrymandering.
Yet, Paxton argues this maneuver betrayed public trust, saying, “These jet-setting runaways have already lost public trust by abandoning our state.” The question looms whether fleeing legislative duty, even for principled reasons, justifies potential legal consequences when funded by outside groups.
O’Rourke, a persistent thorn in the side of Texas Republicans after failed runs for president, Senate, and governor, remains unapologetic. His response to Paxton on social media, claiming the AG is “scared of accountability,” suggests this fight is as much personal as it is political, though it sidesteps the legal merits of the probe.
Paxton’s statements pull no punches, especially on Texas Majority PAC, where he warned, “Getting financial payouts under the table to abandon your legislative duties is bribery.” If evidence substantiates this claim, the fallout could redefine how political funding intersects with legislative responsibility in Texas.
The investigation promises a deep dive into documents and communications, with Paxton vowing to uncover if “illegal bribes” were indeed offered to lawmakers. This isn’t just about two PACs; it’s a test of whether state authority can curb tactics that, while clever, may erode democratic norms.
For now, both Powered by People and Texas Majority PACs have been contacted for comment, but the silence so far speaks volumes. The public awaits whether this probe yields hard evidence or simply fuels another round of political theater in a state known for its bare-knuckle politics.
At its heart, this story pits the principle of legislative duty against the right to protest through absence, a tactic Democrats defend as necessary against perceived Republican overreach. Yet, when PACs bankroll such moves, it’s fair to ask if the spirit of representation gets lost in the shuffle of donor dollars.
Paxton’s focus on accountability resonates with those who believe elected officials must show up, regardless of disagreement, to serve their constituents. If lawmakers can be swayed to skip town by well-funded groups, the integrity of Texas governance risks becoming a casualty of ideological warfare.
Ultimately, this investigation could set a precedent for how far political action committees can go in shaping legislative behavior. Texans, weary of gridlock and grandstanding, deserve clarity on whether their state’s democracy is being upheld or undermined by these behind-the-scenes maneuvers.
