OK folks, this is our final Prop Q pre-election coverage. It’s long, but I’ve broken it up into reasonably sized sections.
First of all, there was a surprise plot twist as the campaign headed into the final stretch. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — displaying his usual grace and tact — injected himself into the fray.
On Friday October 24, Paxton sent out a press release headlined: “Attorney General Paxton Opens Investigation into Love Austin PAC and Affiliated Organization for Operating Scheme to Pass Property Tax Increase.” The lead sentence elaborated: “Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching investigations into multiple organizations regarding a potentially illegal fundraising scheme designed to pass Proposition Q (“Prop Q”) in Austin, TX, which is a ballot measure that would raise property taxes.”
The only campaign contributor that the press release specifically mentioned was Foundation Communities, an Austin affordable housing provider. Paxton’s press release said the organization, “stands to financially benefit from the passage of Prop Q, as it would likely receive a portion of the funds collected by raising Texans’ property taxes.” Foundation Communities contributed $25,000 to Prop Q, as we noted in a previous article – although we made no allegations of illegality.
Although only Foundation Communities was specifically mentioned, the press release also included a broader warning: “Attorney General Paxton has shown he will take aggressive legal action against any non-profit that engages in illegal electioneering, and he stands ready to continue to do so against any organization unlawfully funding Love Austin PAC.”
A fair reading of Paxton’s press release would be that he has launched an investigation into potential violations of campaign finance laws. But, in 2022 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the Attorney General (AG) does not have authority to prosecute state campaign finance violations unless requested to do so by a local district attorney or county attorney. No such approvals were mentioned in Paxton’s press release. (Photo at top is from Paxton’s senatorial campaign website.)
But there’s no law saying Paxton can’t make it sound like he’s investigating potential campaign finance law violations.
The press release, however, also included a link to an October 15 press release which announced that Paxton recently won a court ruling allowing him to seek to revoke the charter of an immigrant rights nonprofit. Paxton maintains that the nonprofit group was engaging in practices that go against their charter. One of the alleged violations, as described in the headline of the October 15 press release, is that the group “Told People Not to Vote for President Trump.”
It is possible, though far from clear in the Attorney General’s press release, that he is investigating Foundation Communities for a potential violation of rules in its charter. In fact the Austin American-Statesman interviewed Walter Moreau of Foundation Communities and gave this summary of what Moreau told them: “He said investigators were seeking public organizational documents, the nonprofit’s conflict of interest policy and internal communications related to the PAC. The organization is working with an outside attorney to prepare its response, which is due Nov. 3.”
So this sounds more like the AG’s office may be looking to see whether anything Foundation Communities has done violates their charter. This doesn’t, of course, mean that Foundation Communities has committed any violations. And, of course, Paxton could just be using the earlier court ruling as cover for a political foray into Austin’s Prop Q battle.
Whatever the case, even if Paxton’s investigation were to result in some sort of findings or actions, that would be well after the November 4 election. But, for the moment, Paxton managed to insert himself into the Prop Q campaign during early voting and garner a round of headlines. That was probably his intent; why, is another question.
It does seems clear that Paxton is trying to intimidate contributors to the Prop Q campaign and to play to anti-Prop Q voters. This, however, could make one wonder how a politician skillful enough to repeatedly get elected statewide — even while under felony indictment — would not understand that a Republican state official getting involved in a local Austin election is likely to drive more voters into the camp that Paxton gives the appearance of trying to damage.
So it’s a pretty confusing move by Paxton. But, here’s another possibility that I don’t think anyone has floated yet. Maybe Paxton was just jealous that Love Austin So Much, the pro-Prop Q campaign, was not displaying a neckless rendering of his head along with those of Donald Trump and Greg Abbott.
The Love Austin So Much campaign will probably add that feature soon. It would be hard to blame them. The only thing that might give them pause is that it reminds voters that their campaign is funded largely by groups and corporations who would benefit financially from Prop Q tax increases.
Maybe Paxton was just jealous that Love Austin So Much, the pro-Prop Q campaign, was not displaying a neckless rendering of his head along with those of Donald Trump and Greg Abbott.
Paxton less enthusiastic when he actually has election law-adjacent power and responsibility
There is one area where the Texas Attorney General’s Office does have what could be called campaign finance law-adjacent powers. That is the power and responsibility to collect fines for violations of Texas campaign finance laws, laws which are notoriously weak. Paxton’s office has apparently shown little enthusiasm for exercising that power/responsibility. For instance a July 2024 Texas Tribune article was headlined: “In Texas, violating campaign ethics laws rarely yields repercussions. The attorney general’s office is to blame.”
Therein the Tribune recalled an infamous 1989 incident in which, “Bo Pilgrim, an East Texas chicken plant magnate, strolled the floor of the Texas Senate and dispensed $10,000 checks to nine members in an effort to stop a worker’s compensation bill from passing.” To many an untrained eye this looked like bribery. Under Texas law, however, it was not illegal. But, continues the Tribune, “the chicken man’s brazenness. . . ruffled enough feathers to usher in a rare era of good government reforms.” The legislature subsequently created the Texas Ethics Commission “as an independent body with investigative power, that would enforce the state’s campaign finance laws,” that is, the few campaign laws that the state of Texas has.
“In Texas, violating campaign ethics laws rarely yields repercussions. The attorney general’s office is to blame.”
Texas Tribune
But, continues the Tribune, “Three decades following its inception, the commission is toothless. Compliance of Texas’ ethics laws is largely voluntary. That’s because the agency relies on the Texas attorney general to enforce payment of fines for violations.”
They then add, “And under Ken Paxton, who himself owed $11,000 in ethics fines until recently (the story was in July 2024), that (enforcement/collection of fines) has rarely happened.
“A review by The Texas Tribune found that the number of politicians, lobbyists and political action committees that owe fines for breaking state campaign finance laws has exploded in recent years.” The Tribune then offers some further detail.
“Since Paxton took office in 2015, the ethics commission has referred 2,500 unpaid fines to the attorney general for enforcement, the Tribune found. During that time, Paxton’s office has filed just 175 enforcement lawsuits, or 7% of the cases referred to it. Most occurred early in his tenure. After filing none in 2020 and 2021, the attorney general’s office brought 18 cases in 2022, 25 last year and just one so far in the first six months of 2024.”
The Tribune continues, “As enforcement has lagged, the number of delinquent candidates and elected officials has soared. In 2019, 327 filers owed $1.3 million in fines. Through June, 750 filers owed $3.6 million.”
To summarize, Paxton has blasted into Austin’s Prop Q battle, but, when it comes to enforcing fines assessed for actual campaign violations, he displays a lot less energy.
Statesman editorial board slams Paxton’s foray into local politics
The Austin American-Statesman editorial board wasn’t having any of Paxton’s entry into local politics. They quickly wrote:
“Austinites already face a tough choice in deciding Proposition Q, the tax rate election on the Nov. 4 ballot. They don’t need their state’s top lawyer using his office to punish voices he dislikes in that debate, or to chill others from participating in it.
Yet that is exactly what Attorney General Ken Paxton is doing.”
They then summarized what a Rice professor told them about state election law: “Nonprofits are barred from donating to political candidates. . . but Texas election law doesn’t stop them from financially supporting a ballot proposition.”
The editorial board continued, “When prosecutors pursue investigations based on politics, they undermine the principle of equal justice and weaken democracy itself. Texans of every persuasion should be alarmed when those in power use their office to intimidate citizens from participating in civic life.”
“When prosecutors pursue investigations based on politics, they undermine the principle of equal justice and weaken democracy itself.
Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board Re texas AG Ken Paxton
They then concluded, “We opposed Prop Q over concerns about affordability and City Hall spending. But whether one supports or opposes this measure, Austinites deserve a free and open debate — not one chilled by a state official weaponizing his office for political gain.”
The Statesman editorial board did indeed oppose Prop Q. . . their position summarized clearly and succinctly in a headline and subhead: “We wish we could support Austin’s Prop Q. Here’s why we can’t endorse it.” That was followed by the subhead, “Austin taxpayers deserve accountability and proof of progress before being asked to shoulder another increase.”
In my view the Statesman editorial board is doing something here that we need more of, both in Austin and the nation as a whole. They evaluated an important local issue on its merits. They looked at it from a variety of directions. Then they made their endorsement and thoroughly explained their decision. But, when a state official tried to wield undue influence, to ostensibly help the same side that the editorial board endorsed, they condemned his intervention in very strong and clear terms.
I would also add that the news side of the Statesman covered Paxton’s insertion of himself into the election in a balanced and informative fashion.
OK, I don’t want to go too wild in praising the Statesman. So let’s move on to the next section.
Correction
Before leaving the section on journalism I need to report a correction to my immediately previous article.
In my last story I reported that “According to [Mayor Kirk] Watson’s figures, (City Manager T.C.) Broadnax’s budget increased property taxes by $268.23 a year. Then the tax rate election proposed by Watson and the Council will add $201.30 ($40.26 x 5).”
I should have said that the $268.23 figure was for property taxes and City fee increases combined, rather than just property taxes.
The figure for the amount the Prop Q tax rate election would cost the “typical homeowner” remains correct: $201.30.
I apologize for the error.
Love Austin So Much Campaign Still Based on Tying Prop Q to Trump and Abbott
Meanwhile, the Love Austin So Much campaign is clinging to their strategy of blaming Donald Trump and Greg Abbott for Prop 2. (If you haven’t seen our earlier article on that strategy you can find it here.) But, without acknowledging it, they have backed off earlier claims that Prop Q “will restore Trump cuts to Austin.” That claim was made on the group’s website and, in slightly different language, in a mass text.
That quiet retreat came after multiple City officials refused to provide a single example of a Trump cut that Prop Q would replace. Officials who were asked that question (by the Austin Independent) and refused to answer — or to communicate back in any way — were:
- the City’s top two Finance officials;
- the Chief Communications Director;
- the Mayor; and
- the nine members of the City Council who are supporting Prop Q (everybody but Marc Duchen).
The campaign’s retreat from claiming that Prop Q will “restore Trump cuts” was evident, at least to those watching closely, in a mailer that began arriving in mailboxes all over Austin — mainly ones where Democrats live — the weekend before early voting began. Featuring the same scowling Trump-Abbott graphic that originally appeared on the group’s website, this mailer promised only that Prop Q would “protect Austin after Trump’s cuts.”
This mailer was a team effort by the Love Austin So Much campaign and the county and state Democratic parties. It featured the “Love Austin So Much” logo, the return address of the “State Democratic Executive Committee,” a disclosure saying it was “Paid for by the Texas Democratic Party,” and a headline reading “Endorsed by the Travis County Democratic Party.”
It’s back. Trump-Abbott Prop Q mailer by Texas Democratic Party, sent the weekend before early voting began
A second mailer arrived a few days later. The scowling Trump and Abbott images were gone, replaced with photos of three elected officials: Mayor Kirk Watson; Congressman Greg Casar; and Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes. Each had a quote next to their smiling faces. Watson managed to avoid mentioning Trump. With Casar, however, the first words out of his mouth, or rather the first words of his quote, were literally “Donald Trump.”
“Donald Trump has slashed funding for critical Austin services. Voting for Prop Q shows that we won’t give to Trump (I didn’t leave out any words there),” said Casar.
A second pro-Prop Q mailer sent in recent days by the State Democratic Executive Committee
Vanessa Fuentes finished off the mailer, saying, “Passing Proposition Q tells Donald Trump and Greg Abbott they don’t call the shots in Austin.”
Notice that no one mentioned a specific Trump cut, and certainly not one that Prop Q will replace. Instead if Austin voters approve the Prop Q tax increase it will “protect Austin after Trump’s cuts,” show “that we won’t give to Trump,” and “tells Donald Trump and Greg Abbott they don’t call the shots in Austin.” Take that. Yeah.
At this point, given the general political atmosphere in the city and the country, I am going to repeat what I said in the first article. I am not trying to defend Donald Trump. I’m just seeking a rational and factual discussion on Prop Q.
In closing this section I will say that the strategy of framing a vote for Prop Q as a way to fight back against Donald Trump and Greg Abbott might seem like a flawed strategy. One reason is that the approach is lacking in accuracy and ethics. But, if that is set aside, it’s probably the best chance Prop Q has. Donald Trump is extremely unpopular in Austin. Love Austin So Much could win a lot of votes if they succeed in convincing enough people that Trump is responsible for making Prop Q necessary, or that voting to raise their taxes somehow sticks it to him.
A More Direct Path to Defy Greg Abbott
One question I have heard out there is why is Greg Abbott’s head up there with Trump. It’s because Abbott signed a bill that limits City property tax increases to 3.5% a year. If a City government wants to go over that there has to be an election, like Prop Q.
Chito Vela explained this in his inimitable way at a CBS Austin debate. Host Walt Maciborski began the debate by asking, “how did we get here?”
Vela responded, “We got here because of the Texas Legislature cutting the amount of property tax revenues that the City could collect.” He added, “If we want good municipal services, if we want quality City services, we’re going to need additional revenues.” Vela didn’t specifically mention Abbott, but the governor backed the bill and then signed it. (The whole debate can be found here. The link above is to an edited version.)
“If we want good municipal services, if we want quality City services, we’re going to need additional revenues.”
Council member Chito Vela
In its endorsement, the Statesman editorial board took aim at the genre of rationale invoked by Vela. They wrote, “City officials point to the strain of meeting rising costs while state law caps the growth in property tax revenue from existing properties at just 3.5% a year. They pine for a previous era when those tax revenues regularly grew up to 8% a year — as if that type of increase, year after year, was sustainable for taxpayers.”
The Austin Independent learned that Chito Vela was among the people who represented the Prop Q campaign at a discussion before the editorial board, with representatives of both sides present. We do not know if Vela made a similar statement there.
Getting back to Governor Greg Abbott, a much more direct way to strike a blow at him would be to campaign against Proposition 12 on the same November ballot as Prop Q. As Houston Public Media explained, Proposition 12 “would grant the governor significant new powers when it comes to disciplining or even dismissing elected judges.”
They continue: “The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent agency run by a mix of 13 members — six judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas, two attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Texas, and five citizens appointed by the governor. Proposition 12 would let the governor name a majority of the commission’s members.” The article also points out that the governor previously “removed two of the commission members who acted against Abbott’s wishes.”
State Proposition 12 on the November ballot “would grant the governor significant new powers when it comes to disciplining or even dismissing elected judges.”
Houston public Media
Another thing to keep in mind is that the overall thrust of the Texas Constitution is to have a governor with very limited powers. This amendment to the state constitution would seriously chip away at that long held principle.
Austin is likely to have a higher turnout that other places around the state, due to Prop Q. So an organized campaign locally against Proposition 12 could potentially have statewide impact. But, to my knowledge, that is not happening.
The Endorsement and Turnout Battles
One bit of evidence that the blame Trump strategy might be Prop Q’s best hope is that the the loosely organized opposition forces appear to have won the endorsement battle.
Love Austin So Much has a list of groups endorsing it on their website. But, even some of Prop Q backers are openly “disgruntled.” That was the term used by the Austin Justice Coalition as they offered a “disgruntled yes” in support of Prop Q.
The Austin Chronicle endorsed Prop Q, albeit in a somewhat disgruntled fashion themselves. The Chronicle offered up only four paragraphs, plus the ballot language. Much of what they wrote was critical of the current City government and the tax burden on City residents.
For instance they pointed to rising taxes and utility rates and acknowledged: “This one’s tough.”
They continued, “Part of the problem is that you can’t trust the government these days, and that filters down even to our fair city.” For examples they cited questionable travel and meal expenditures exposed recently by the Statesman. They also invoked the “logo-gate brouhaha.”
“But here’s the thing: The $200 a year will pay for things we desperately want.” They then specifically mentioned addressing homelessness, parks, social services, and wanting “911 calls to be handled quicker.”
They then concluded. “City leaders say – convincingly, we feel – that the Prop Q money will help solve these generational challenges.” The Love Austin Campaign does not name the Chronicle in their list of endorsements.
As already noted, the opposition side won the Statesman endorsement. Plus, major components of the business community are opposing Prop Q, unpersuaded by the Prop Q endorsements of the Mayor and nine Council Members. The anti-Prop Q business coalition includes major real estate forces, with whom the Council super majority usually marches in something approaching lockstep.
The anti-Prop Q business coalition includes major real estate forces, with whom the Council super majority usually marches in something approaching lockstep.
Specifically, a coalition of major business groups joined together to oppose Prop Q. They were: Opportunity Austin, the Austin Chamber, the Austin Regional Manufacturers Association, the Austin Technology Council, the Central Texas Public Safety Commission — formerly known as the Greater Austin Crime Commission, the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA), the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the Austin Apartment Association.
In a press release the coalition warned: “Proposition Q will dramatically raise property taxes and the cost of living for Austin residents and businesses, making affordability worse.”
The Austin Chamber felt strongly enough to also issue a statement solely in their own name. They made many of the same arguments as in the coalition letter, but added, “Businesses in Austin experience an outsized share of rising fiscal pressures, and the Austin Chamber remains concerned that further property tax increases will lead to more businesses moving out of our city.”
So, many signs point to strong opposition to the proposed tax hike. There are also preliminary indications that increasing numbers of citizens are losing faith in the City Council and City government. It is, however, way too early to count out the Council super majority or other pro-Prop Q forces. For example, keep in mind that the three people on the second flyer — a Congressman, the Mayor and former state senator, and the Mayor Pro Tem are used to winning elections. They may not be great at governing, but they have proven adept at winning elections in Austin.
So the outcome will depend in large part on how well each side does in turning out their voters.
___________________
Folks: You’re unlikely to find local coverage like the Austin Independent provides anywhere else. If we’re going to keep publishing stories like this we need more paid subscribers. Please consider subscribing and/or donating. It will help us, for example, to expand our readership base and to pay for important public information requests To subscribe or donate, click here. Funds we receive will be used primarily to try to increase our readership base.
To receive notification when the Austin Independent posts stories, to subscribe, or to write to the editor please send us an email under Contact on the home page,or click here.
The Austin Independent, a publication of The Austin Independent, LLC
All Rights Reserved