When the Watchdog Looks Away: How the Texas Ethics Commission failing to Enforce Campaign Finance Law

Texas campaign finance law is not ambiguous. It is not discretionary. And it is not optional.

Yet time and again, the agency charged with enforcing those laws—the Texas Ethics Commission—has chosen not to act, even when the violations are clear on the face of the filings.

One of the most glaring examples involves political donations connected to the Chickasaw Nation.

This post explains what the law requires, what the filings show, and how the Commission’s inaction undermines both election integrity and the rule of law.

The Law Is Clear

Texas Election Code strictly limits who may give, how much they may give, and under what conditions political contributions may be accepted.

Among other things, Texas law prohibits:

• Contributions from impermissible sources,

• Contributions structured to evade statutory limits, and

• Contributions that mask the true source of funds.

These limits are not advisory.They are binding law enacted by the Legislature and enforceable by the Commission.

The Ethics Commission does not have authority to narrow those limits, reinterpret them away, or selectively enforce only the portions it finds convenient.

What the Filings Show

Publicly available campaign finance reports show multiple donations tied to entities and individuals affiliated with the Chickasaw Nation that raise serious statutory red flags, including:

• Contributions that appear to exceed source-based restrictions,

• Patterns suggesting coordinated or pass-through giving, and

• Donations that should have triggered, at minimum, formal investigation or enforcement review.

These are not obscure technicalities.They are the exact types of violations Texas campaign finance law exists to prevent.

The filings themselves provide the evidence. No speculation is required.

The Ethics Commission’s Silence

Despite the clarity of the statutes and the transparency of the filings, the Texas Ethics Commission has taken no meaningful enforcement action.

No public explanation. No formal determination. No corrective action.

Silence.

This is not a matter of limited resources or competing priorities.The Commission routinely pursues far smaller, far less consequential violations.

When an agency charged with enforcement chooses not to enforce the law as written, it is no longer exercising discretion—it is rewriting the law by omission.

Why This Matters

Campaign finance laws exist for one reason:to ensure that political power in Texas is not quietly purchased, laundered, or insulated from accountability.

When those laws are ignored:

• Voters are denied transparency,

• Law-abiding candidates are disadvantaged, and

• Public trust in elections erodes.

Even worse, selective enforcement creates a two-tiered system:

• One set of rules for ordinary Texans, and

• Another for politically connected donors and institutions.

That is not republican government. It is favoritism masquerading as regulation.

Agencies Do Not Get to Pick Which Laws Count

The Ethics Commission is an executive agency. Its duty is ministerial enforcement, not policy judgment.

It does not get to decide:

• Which statutes are enforced,

• Which violations are “worth” addressing, or

• Which donors are too powerful to scrutinize.

When an agency declines to enforce the full text of the law, it substitutes its own preferences for the will of the People as expressed through statute.

That is a structural failure, not a procedural one.

Why the Sword & Shield Acts Matter Here

The problem exposed above is not a lack of law. It is a lack of enforcement.

That is precisely the gap the Sword & Shield Acts are designed to close.

The Acts do not create new campaign finance restrictions.

They do not invent new crimes.

They do not expand government power.

Instead, they enforce what already exists: the Constitution, duly enacted statutes, and the oaths public officials swear to uphold.

Enforcement Is Not Discretionary

Under the Texas Constitution and existing statutes, agencies like the Texas Ethics Commission are charged with ministerial duties—they execute the law as written.

They are not authorized to:

• Narrow statutory text,

• Ignore disfavored provisions,

• Adopt internal policies that override the Legislature, or

• Quietly decline enforcement based on convenience or political sensitivity.

When an agency knowingly chooses not to enforce part of a statute, it is no longer exercising discretion—it is substituting its own judgment for the law itself.

Sword & Shield treats that substitution for what it is: ultra vires conduct.

What Sword & Shield Would Do Differently

If the Sword & Shield Acts were law, conduct like the Ethics Commission’s failure described above would trigger immediate consequences:

• Ministerial Compliance as a Condition of Authority Agencies would be required to enforce statutes in full, not selectively. Continued non-enforcement after notice would void any claim of lawful authority.

• Non-Delegability of Constitutional and Statutory Duties An agency could not waive, narrow, or internally “reinterpret away” enforcement obligations imposed by statute.

• Oath Supremacy Over Agency Practice Advisory opinions, internal policies, or longstanding customs would no longer shield officials from accountability when those practices conflict with the law.

• Loss of Immunity for Ultra Vires Acts Sovereign or qualified immunity could not be invoked to protect officials who knowingly refuse to carry out mandatory statutory duties.

In short: agencies would no longer be able to make disobedience invisible.

Why This Is Necessary

The Ethics Commission’s silence on clear campaign finance violations illustrates a systemic problem:

When enforcement bodies are allowed to pick which laws matter, elections stop being governed by law and start being governed by insiders.

Sword & Shield restores the original constitutional order:

• The Legislature writes the law.

• Agencies enforce it.

• No one gets to quietly veto statutes through inaction.

This is not radical. It is the baseline expectation of republican government.

Accountability Is the Point

The Sword & Shield Acts exist because accountability without enforcement is an illusion.

If agencies refuse to enforce campaign finance limits—especially when powerful donors or institutions are involved—then voters are entitled to a remedy.

Not new rules. Not new loopholes. Just enforcement of the law already on the books.

That is what Sword & Shield provides.

Accountability Is Not Optional

Texas does not need new campaign finance laws. It needs the laws already on the books to be enforced.

If the Texas Ethics Commission cannot or will not carry out that duty, then the public has every right—indeed, an obligation—to demand answers, transparency, and reform.

Compliance is free. Lawlessness is not.

And no agency is above the Constitution, the statutes, or the People they exist to serve.

Supporting Documentation & How to Verify the Record Yourself

This post relies exclusively on publicly available campaign finance records and statutory text. No proprietary sources were used, and no special access is required to verify the facts.

Readers are encouraged to review the filings directly.

Where the Campaign Finance Records Are Located

All campaign finance filings discussed in this post are publicly accessible through:

• The Texas Ethics Commission electronic filing database, and

• Third-party transparency platforms such as Transparency USA, which aggregate and organize the same TEC data.

Using these sources, readers can independently review:

• Donor names and entities,

• Contribution amounts and dates,

• Recipient candidates and political committees, and

• Patterns that implicate statutory source and limit restrictions.

Nothing cited here is hidden, sealed, or speculative.

Relevant Statutory Authority

The legal analysis in this post is grounded in existing Texas law, including provisions of the Texas Election Code governing:

• Impermissible sources of political contributions,

• Contribution limits and aggregation rules, and

• Disclosure and reporting requirements for candidates and political committees.

These statutes are binding law enacted by the Legislature. They are not optional, advisory, or subject to agency preference.

Why the Filings Are Not Reposted Here

The purpose of this post is not to curate documents, but to highlight an enforcement failure.

Campaign finance transparency already exists.What is missing is accountability.

By directing readers to the original filings, this post ensures:

• Anyone can verify the record independently,

• No one can claim documents were selectively presented, and

• The focus remains on enforcement—not access.

The Standard Is Simple

If the law sets limits, they must be enforced. If filings trigger review, that review must occur. And if an agency declines to act, the public is entitled to ask why.

The records are public. The statutes are clear. The silence is the story.