LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor, It’s been said that money is the mother’s milk of American politics.
Looking at the money that was spent by candidates and political action committees in the November 4 San Marcos City Council election, I’d disagree. For some candidates, money was the richest grade of thick, sweet cream that money could buy. For others, it was the last few drops that could be shaken out of the skim milk container just before it was tossed into the recycling bin. And without any milk, the coffee sure does taste bitter.
Funny how this stuff works. The City of San Marcos has ordinances that govern donations and spending in mayoral and city council elections. They say that individuals can contribute up to $500 to a candidate in a municipal election— mayor or city council. On the candidate side, campaigns can accept up to $48,064 in total. That’s an unusual number, but there’s a logic behind it; it’s based on the formula of $1 per registered voter in the last general election, in this case, that was November 2024.
Sounds pretty clear, right? Well, maybe not. Individuals aren’t the only donors to city campaigns. Political Action Committees – PACs – can also play in this sandbox. A PAC is an organization that raises money to influence elections or legislation. And let me tell you, that was one busy sandbox going into the November 4 municipal election. We were looking at two candidates for the Place 1 Council seat; five for Place 2, and a new San Marcos PAC, “A Brighter Future for San Marcos” that seemed organized primarily to support its favored candidates in the election.
By giving money directly to PACs, donors can avoid the limits the law places on contributions by individuals. And because certain types of PACs do not contribute directly to an individual candidate’s campaign, they can avoid limits on how much money a candidate or campaign may raise for a particular San Marcos city election. But PACs can – and do – support individual campaigns. The trick is they have to do it at arm’s length. They cannot coordinate with any candidate or campaign they may be supporting. This doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t mirror the issues and positions of candidates they favor.
There are also specific laws governing political contributions from corporations to candidates and campaigns. Generally, they may not contribute to a political committee established or controlled by a candidate or officeholder. But they may contribute to certain PACs, as they have in this. And in the November 4 municipal election, they certainly did. Boy, did they ever!
And unlike the candidates themselves, the PAC does not have to file financial reports with the City of San Marcos.
The disparity in raising and spending by the Brighter Future PAC and the direct campaign finances of two candidates it supported along a parallel path – Josh Paselk and Matthew Mendoza – was enormous. To put it in terms of San Marcos geography, I’d rank it somewhere in the range of the deepest point in the Wonder World caves to the top of the J.C. Kellam Administration Building, the tallest building on the Texas State University campus. Here are just a few examples, based on campaign finance filing data available on the City of San Marcos and Texas Ethics Commission websites.
Funds Raised: • Josh Paselk – $5,478.34
• Matthew Mendoza – $4,780.00
• Brighter Future PAC – $69,408.54 The difference? The Brighter Future PAC raised almost 13 times the amount raised by Paselk. In the case of Mendoza, it was close to a multiple of 15.
Funds Spent: • Josh Paselk – $6,749.58
• Matthew Mendoza – $3,909.39
• Brighter Future PAC – $38,597.28 The difference? The Brighter Future PAC spent almost six times as much as Paselk and almost 10 times as much as Mendoza.
Number of Donors: • Josh Paselk – 21
• Matthew Mendoza – 18
• Brighter Future PAC – 35 The difference? The Brighter Future PAC donor base eclipsed by Paselk’s by a multiple of 1.7 and Mendoza’s by 1.9.
Average Amount Per Donor:
• Josh Paselk – $260.87
• Matthew Mendoza – $265.56
SEE LETTER TO THE EDITOR PAGE 9A • Brighter Future PAC – $1,983.10 The difference? The average contribution of the Brighter Future PAC was 7.6 times greater than Paselk’s and 7.5 times greater than Mendoza’s.
Corporate Contributions:
• Josh Paselk – $0.00
• Matthew Mendoza – $0.00
• Brighter Future PAC – $21,500 The Difference? The corporate contributions received by the Brighter Future PAC exceeded both the Paselk’s and Mendoza’s individual campaigns by $21,500.
Number of Campaign Contributions from $1,000 to $10,000:
• Josh Paselk – 0
• Matthew Mendoza – 0
• Brighter Future PAC – 13 In reviewing campaign finance filings of all other council candidates, I found no indication of any other PAC support.
Some have suggested to me that this was the most expensive San Marcos city council election to date. I have no reason to doubt this assertion. But it is clear that, based on examinations of campaign finance documents in previous campaigns, and comparing them with this cycle’s individual PAC donations, the amounts contributed by individual donors – at least where the PAC is concerned, is on an accelerated upward trajectory. I encountered both candidates on the campaign trail and stopped to talk to each of them. Both brought up the subject of the Brighter Future PAC, but each had a very different perspective. Mr. Paselk offered no objection. Mr. Mendoza had a more nuanced take.
I commented to Mr. Mendoza on a mail piece I received touting his candidacy that very day. He appeared surprised that it had been delivered days ahead of schedule. I was on my way home from the Post Office, so it was still in my car and I showed it to him. He looked at it, shook his head back and forth and said, “That’s not mine.” “But it’s got your name on it, and your picture,” I countered. That’s when he explained to me about the Brighter Future PAC and pointed out its name printed in small type on the mail piece.
That’s when I learned that most of the multiple campaign mailings I’d received on behalf of both candidates were not from their campaigns at all, but from the Brighter Future PAC. Mr. Mendoza said that he spoke to a Brighter Future representative and explained that he wanted neither the group’s support nor involvement in his campaign.
Why the Brighter Future PAC’s interest and substantial investment in this campaign? At least two seasoned observers I spoke to who had been following the issue suggested that the group’s motive was to counter what it perceived of as a progressive bloc on the city council. Although, to be fair, the Brighter Future PAC uses much loftier language and a much wider range of issues in explaining its goals.
And among those goals is “disciplined, transparent governance.” But if transparency means that a resident of San Marcos has to visit the Texas Ethics Commission website to find who’s actually behind the Brighter Future PAC and where its money is coming from, I’d submit that it is failing its own transparency test.
Is all this legal? As far as I understand campaign finance laws and free speech issues, it is. But that doesn’t make it right. Clearly, the opportunity for misunderstanding and confusion exists – perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not. But either way, more information is needed. More transparency. More respect for the voters.
Lofty words are all well and good, but if they don’t tell you who the players are and how much skin they have in the game, they’re nothing but lofty words. And in withholding that information in their communications with San Marcos voters, I have to ask myself, “Why?”
We should expect more from the organization that seems to be the dominant player in this campaign. We cannot let the clamorous voice of big money drown out the quieter voice of the individual voter who lacks the megaphone necessary to be heard above the clanging of the cash register.
Sincerely, Jon Leonard San Marcos
