LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor, I read the news today; oh, boy! About a lucky man who made the grade.
His name? Greg Abbott. You may recognize it: he’s the current governor of the Great State of Texas. And, boy, did he ever make the grade – to the tune of a staggering $106 million! Well, to be precise, the actual figure is $105,787,179.54. (I’d hate to be accused of fudging the numbers by exaggerating by a mere $212,820.46.)
So what’s it all about? That, essentially, is the size of Greg Abbott’s political war chest as of December 31, 2025. That’s the amount of money he had on hand at the end of the year to spend on his re-election campaign going into the March 3 Primary Election and, assuming he’s successful in March, it gives him a nice head start for the November 3 General Election.
But it’s worth remembering that his campaign loot isn’t capped by what he had in the bank on December 31. Not by a long shot. The fact is, the money keeps rolling in. Dollar after dollar. Day after day.
For the reporting period that wrapped up at the end of the year, covering the six-month period beginning July 1, Abbott’s campaign brought in $22.7 million. That’s $123,369.57 every 24 hours. Or, for the more numerically curious among our readers, that comes to $85.67 a minute. Looking at it from the perspective of donors, the average contribution from each of Abbott’s 48,000 donors, was just over $473.
In my peak earning years, I could only dream of $85.67 an hour, much less $85.67 a minute. There’s no reason to think this incredible Niagara Falls of cash slowed down in any way as the calendar changed from 2025 to 2026.
And from what I’ve read, Abbott’s campaign take set – and holds – the fundraising record for a Texas gubernatorial campaign.
Let’s put it into perspective.
There are 11 candidates vying for the Republican nomination for Texas governor in the March 3 primary. Excluding the money Abbott’s campaign raked in for the sixmonth reporting period, the other 10 Republican candidates brought in $185,904.35. That comes to slightly more than eight percent of Abbott’s total. If we include Abbott’s booty, their share of the stash comes to less than one percent of money raised by all Republican gubernatorial candidates.
On the Democratic side of the ledger, the nine candidates for governor raised a combined total of $1,132,012.95 for the same reporting period. That comes to an average of $125,779 for each candidate. Gina Hinojosa, who has a significant lead in the polls for Democratic nominee, raised $1,038,189.09 – about 92 percent of the aggregate total of her inparty competitors. But when measured against Abbott’s mind-numbing swag, her take comes to less than five percent of his wallet-busting wad of cash.
In slicing and dicing these figures, it’s worth nothing that as of January 15, five Democrats and five Republicans reported no campaign contributions during the most recent reporting period. This, of course, means that the average take per candidate, at least among those with a reportable income stream, is significantly higher than the average for all candidates in their respective races. Adjusting for this, the average Democratic take is $283,000 for each candidate and, among Republicans, $3,783,333 – a breathtaking multiple, more than 13 times larger!
The simple fact, though, is that Abbott’s mind-numbing campaign boodle completely dominates and distorts the picture.
In the broader discussion of campaign financing, it’s often been said that “Money equals speech.” And with that in mind, any level of campaign finance reform is considered an assault on free speech.
That’s complete nonsense. Money equals money. And speech equals speech. The two are not equal, despite the completely wrongheaded decisions of the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Of course, money can facilitate speech. How many times have we heard the advice, “Never get into a war of words with somebody who buys ink by the barrel”?
But here’s the rub: assuming – for the sake of argument – that money does, in fact, equal speech, then it stands to reason that those with more money have more free speech rights than those with less money. It provides them greater access to the tools of communication – the tools of speech – in a society in which access to tools that reach beyond the sound of one’s voice may, theoretically, be available to all, but, because of their cost, realistically available only to some.
We saw that recently
SEE CAMPAIGN MONEY PAGE 11 here in the San Marcos city council elections when a single, organized group, taking advantage of a loophole in Texas law, raised more than $110,000 in pursuit of success for its two favored candidates – allowing it to completely bypass any and all campaign finance limitations enacted by the City of San Marcos.
Those limits? Individual campaign contributions cannot exceed $500 per election cycle to a candidate for mayor or city council. The Charter also limits aggregate fundraising, for both mayor and council candidates, to an amount equal to $1.00 multiplied by the number of registered voters in the city on the date of the last General Election – which would have come to $48,064.
The larger issue is the inadequacy of existing law and regulations to address the discrepancies between what state law permits, even if that is at odds with what cities permit – even if it gives a louder voice to some than to others, particularly at election time, based on the size of their bank accounts.
The bottom line? More and more money will be thrown at elections, following the Greg Abbott model. And more and more groups will learn how to legally avoid spending limitations set by local jurisdictions such as San Marcos.
By the way, that bigdollar- raising and bigdollar- spending San Marcos group? Well, according to its January 15 Campaign Finance Report, it had cash on hand of $33,749.86 as of December 31. Anybody interested in running for mayor or city council this year should probably take that into consideration.
The world of campaign finance has changed – and not for the better. And it’s unlikely to improve any time soon.
Sincerely, Jon Leonard San Marcos
