#Gifts for Politicians and Elected Officials

[noisycowboyglitter]

Kamala Harris for President 2024: The Path to Victory Begins

Kamala Harris for President 2024 represents a potential scenario where the current Vice President decides to run for the highest office in the United States. As of my last update in April 2024, this is a hypothetical situation, as the official Democratic ticket for the 2024 election has not been announced.

Buy now:19.95$

If Harris were to run for president, her campaign would likely emphasize her extensive experience in public service, including her roles as District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California, U.S. Senator, and Vice President. Her historic position as the first woman, first Black person, and first person of South Asian descent to hold the office of Vice President would be a significant aspect of her campaign narrative.

Harris's campaign platform would likely focus on issues she has championed throughout her career, such as criminal justice reform, healthcare access, climate change, and economic equality. Her ability to bridge moderate and progressive elements within the Democratic Party could be both an asset and a challenge, as she navigates diverse voter expectations.

Buy now

As a presidential candidate, Harris would face intense scrutiny of her record and leadership style. Her performance as Vice President, including her handling of key assignments such as addressing root causes of migration at the southern border, would be closely examined.

Harris's campaign would need to energize the Democratic base while also appealing to independent voters. Her debating skills and public speaking ability, which have been both praised and criticized, would be crucial in connecting with voters and articulating her vision for the country.

A Kamala Harris presidential run in 2024 would be historic, potentially positioning her to become the first woman and person of color to lead the United States. However, she would face significant challenges, including potential primary opponents and a likely contentious general election campaign.

Buy now

The best gift for a politician should be thoughtful, appropriate, and respectful of their position and ethical guidelines. Given the scrutiny public figures face, it's crucial to choose gifts that don't raise questions about impropriety or attempts to influence.

A meaningful book related to political history, leadership, or a topic aligned with their interests can be both personal and professional. High-quality writing instruments, such as a fountain pen or a leather-bound journal, are practical for their daily work and convey a sense of prestige.

Patriotic items like a tasteful flag pin or a decorative piece representing their state or district can appeal to their sense of civic duty. Locally-made products from their constituency show an appreciation for their community and support local businesses.

For a more personal touch, consider a custom-framed photograph of a significant moment in their career or a piece of art depicting a landmark from their district. A donation made in their name to a non-partisan charity they support can be a thoughtful gesture that aligns with their values.

Buy now

Technology accessories, such as a high-quality power bank or a sleek laptop case, can be useful for their busy lifestyle. For those who appreciate humor, a witty political cartoon or a collection of political jokes (keeping it respectful and bipartisan) might be appreciated.

Ultimately, the best gift demonstrates an understanding of the politician's role, interests, and the importance of maintaining ethical standards in public service.

[contemplatingoutlander]

How to cover an abnormal presidential race

Could the media coverage adhere closer to reality? Hard questions must be asked.

Jennifer Rubin offers a much needed road map as to how journalists should be covering an election between a politician who upholds democratic values (Biden) vs. a politician who is determined to undermine the Constitution and create a dictatorship (Trump). I wish mainstream journalists would follow her advice. Below are some excerpts, but you can use the gift🎁link to read the entire article.

The United States has never had an election in which: a felon runs for president on a major party ticket; a presidential candidate lays out a detailed plan for authoritarian rule; an entire party gaslights the public (e.g., claiming the president was behind their candidate’s state prosecution; pretending they won the last election); and, prominent leaders of one party signal they will not accept an adverse outcome in the next election. Yet, the coverage of the 2024 campaign is remarkably anodyne, if not oblivious, to the unprecedented nature of this election and its implications. [...] How could the coverage stick more closely to reality? Obsession with early polling that inevitably becomes meaningless after big events such as Trump’s conviction (stuff happens!) and that cannot yet gauge who is likely to vote should go by the wayside — or at least come with caveats and not drive coverage. What would be informative: A minute or two of unedited video showing Trump’s rambling, incoherent and deranged rants. Rather than merely “fact check” the nonsense blizzard, reports can explore the unprecedented nature of his rhetoric, illustrate the deterioration in his thinking and speech, and discuss how an obviously irrational and unhinged leader casts a spell over his devoted following. The media also can refuse to entertain laughable MAGA spin, such as claiming that Trump’s conviction will help him win the election.... When such incidents pop up, informative journalism would examine what else MAGA forces lie about (e.g., crowd size) and how authoritarians depend on creating a false aura of invincibility. When supposedly normal Republican officials parrot Trump’s obvious falsehoods and baseless accusations, interviewers must come prepared to debunk them. Republicans cannot be allowed to slide past hard questions about their election denial, false data points, baseless attacks on the courts and hypocrisy (the law and order party?). Treating Republicans as innocent bystanders in the democracy train wreck distorts reality. And instead of endless harping on President Biden’s age, some honest comparison between the disjointed, frightful interview responses from Trump and the detailed, policy-laden answers from Biden in Time magazine’s two interviews might illuminate the obvious disparity in acuity....There is simply no comparison between Biden, who talks in detail about policy, and Trump, who cannot get through a Newsmax(!) interview without sounding nuts. Likewise, treating Hunter Biden’s case (having nothing to do with the president) as though it were as significant as Trump’s criminal conviction betrays a lack of perspective and a hunger for clicks. Insisting this poses a problem or embarrassment for Biden amounts to amplifying MAGA spin. Finally, given voters’ misunderstanding of the economy, news outlets should focus on the results of Biden’s policies and the likely effect of his opponent’s shockingly inflationary plan. Focusing on the gap between public opinion and economic reality (to which coverage contributes) unwittingly reveals the media’s own shortcomings in educating voters. [emphasis added]

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Alberta is proposing legislation to make it easier to change dollar limits and rules surrounding gifts for elected officials. It's a move the Opposition NDP calls a self-serving ploy by Premier Danielle Smith's United Conservative Party government to better position itself to be on the receiving end of a gravy train of perks. "The government trying to limit the value of gifts is like allowing a teenager to set their own curfew," NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir told reporters Friday. "These changes to the Conflicts of Interest Act are about protecting the UCP. "It means less transparency and more of that good old Conservative entitlement to backroom deals." Currently, non-monetary gifts to politicians are capped at $200 and elected officials can accept tickets worth up to $400 a year from any one source.

Continue Reading.

Tagging @politicsofcanada

[mariacallous]

In the North Philadelphia neighbourhood of Fairhill, signs of Puerto Rico are never far off. The US island territory's red, white and blue flag adorns homes and businesses, and the sounds of salsa and reggaetón boom from passing cars and restaurants selling fried plantains and spit-roasted pork.

The area is the beating heart of Philadelphia's more than 90,000-strong Puerto Rican population and forms a key part of Pennsylvania's Latino community, which both the Democrats and Republicans have sought to woo ahead of the 5 November election.

But on Monday morning, many locals were left seething at a joke made at Donald Trump's rally the night before in New York, in which comic Tony Hinchcliffe described Puerto Rico as an "island of garbage".

The joke, some said, could come back to haunt the Republicans in a key swing state that Democrats won by a narrow margin of 1.17% - about 82,000 votes - in 2020.

"The campaign just hurt itself, so much. It's crazy to me," said Ivonne Torres Miranda, a local resident who said she remains disillusioned by both candidates - Republican Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris - with just eight days to go in the campaign.

"Even if he [Mr Hinchcliffe ] was joking - you don't joke like that.

"We're Puerto Ricans. We have dignity, and we have pride," she told the BBC, speaking in rapid-fire Spanish with a strong Puerto Rican accent.

"You've got to think before saying things."

In the aftermath, the Trump campaign was quick to distance itself from Mr Hinchcliffe's joke, with a spokesman saying the remark "does not reflect the views" of Trump or his campaign.

The Harris campaign pounced on the joke, with the vice-president pointing to the comment as a sign that Trump is "fanning the fuel of trying to divide" Americans.

Her views were echoed by Puerto Rican celebrities Bad Bunny and Jennifer Lopez, who both endorsed Harris on Sunday.

A campaign official told CBS, the BBC's US partner, that the controversy was a political gift to the Democrats.

Some Puerto Rican residents agree with that assessment.

"[The joke] just put it in the bag for us. He literally just gave us the win," said Jessie Ramos, a Harris supporter. "He has no idea how hard the Latino community is going to come out and support Kamala Harris."

Residents of Puerto Rico - a US island territory in the Caribbean - are unable to vote in presidential elections, but the large diaspora in the US can.

Across Pennsylvania, about 600,000 eligible voters are Latino.

More than 470,000 of them are Puerto Ricans - one of the largest concentrations in the country and a potential deciding factor in a state where polls show Harris and Trump in an extremely tight race.

North Philadelphia in particular has been a target for Harris, who on Sunday made a campaign stop at Freddy & Tony's, a Puerto Rican restaurant and community hub in Fairhill.

The same day, Harris unveiled a new policy platform for Puerto Rico, promising economic development and improved disaster relief and accusing Trump of having "abandoned and insulted" the island during Hurricane Maria in 2017.

Whether or not this will sway Puerto Rican voters remains to be seen.

Freddy & Tony's owner, Dalma Santiago, told the BBC that she is not sure whether the joke will make a difference but that she believed that it was heard "loud and clear" in Fairhill and other Puerto Rican communities.

"Everybody has their own opinion," she told the BBC. "But nobody will be forgetting that one."

Similarly, Moses Santana, a 13-year US Army veteran who works at a harm reduction facility in Fairhill, said he is unsure of the joke's impact.

In an interview with the BBC on a Fairhill street corner, Mr Santana said the area is traditionally wary of politicians of all kinds, with many believing that both parties have failed to address socio-economic issues, crime and drug abuse there.

"Folks around here tend not to get what they ask for," he added. "Even when they vote."

On Tuesday, Trump will campaign in Allentown, a town of about 125,000 in central Pennsylvania where about 33,000 people identify as Puerto Rican.

But even among Trump supporters in Pennsylvania's wider Latino community, the joke was poorly received.

That included Republican voter Jessenia Anderson, a Puerto Rican resident from the town of Johnstown about 240 miles (386 km) west of Philadelphia.

Ms Anderson, a military veteran who was born in New York's heavily Puerto Rican Lower East Side, is a frequent attendee of Trump rallies in Pennsylvania.

She described the joke as "deeply offensive" and said the routine felt "wildly out of place" - and implored her fellow Republicans to engage in "thoughtful and respectful conversations".

But Ms Anderson has no plan to switch her vote.

"My belief in the party's potential to make a positive impact remains strong," she said.

"I hope they will approach Latino voters with the respect they deserve."

[celeste444spacey]

Celebrity sp scenarios politician edition (good one ofc)

Okay is this officially MY series cause i know u guys are eating these scenarios up

So ya girl has been obsessed with scandal lately (as i should be) and this shit has me thinking about the president and shit (not even american here like it's insane, plus the show is super fictional soooo)

Anyways i know there's some of you are probably wanting to go into law and politics and want to have an SP who is too.

SO HAVE FUN!!!! HOPE U LIKE THESE

also shoutout to miss @fayelilye for this idea

You and him are one of the most loved people in the political field in the country, (heck even the world) everybody has so much respect for you, even the opposition party cannot say bad things about you guys.

Your man keeps you on his side throughout his political campaign and just cannot be seen in the public without you

He keeps saying how grateful he is that you exist and that he wouldn't even run for office or get this far if it weren't for you

He wins the election and he mentions you in his speech

"Thank you so much to the public for believing in me, the people over at <party> and most specifically the love of my life <you> who has been the backbone of this campaign and without her i don't think i would have won."

5. He makes a groundbreaking policy that changes millions of lives and all cause you suggested it and he names the act after you (i don't know is this even legal?? law students lemme know lmao 😭)

6. During his office, he writes a bunch of love letters for you later releasing the book which becomes a bestseller and all of the chapters are just essays on how much he loves you and thinks about you. He could name it "Letters to <nickname he calls you>".

7. Always seen doing charity everywhere, helping millions of people.

8. Let say he's president, he plans out detailed security for you everywhere he goes, even more than his own just so you can be safe and secure and protected.

9. You are the nation's first couple. That's what people call you, the first couple.

10. Your home is THE home of your country. You guys are lifestyle goals

11. You guys even though super super public and needing maximum security wherever you go, get caught going on ice cream runs late at night with the security surrounding you, but you guys lost in each other like you're kids having fun.

12. You are his personal and political advisor, he comes to you with every issue first and discusses it with you before moving forward.

13. You guys go all out on festivals calling people to the office (for eg the president's place and stuff) for giving gifts, candies and stuff to children and families.

Sooo, do we love these?

[omegaphilosophia]

Unmasking the Actions of Corrupt Politicians: A Closer Look at Political Malpractice

Corrupt politicians engage in a wide range of unethical and illegal activities to maintain and expand their power, often at the expense of the public interest. Some common actions and behaviors associated with corrupt politicians include:

Bribery: Accepting money, gifts, or favors in exchange for political favors, such as favorable legislation or government contracts.

Embezzlement: Misappropriating public funds for personal use or diverting money intended for public programs.

Nepotism: Appointing or promoting family members and close associates to government positions, often without regard for their qualifications.

Cronyism: Favoring friends and allies in political appointments, regardless of their competence or suitability for the role.

Kickbacks: Receiving a portion of the funds from government contracts awarded to certain businesses or individuals.

Extortion: Using threats or coercion to obtain money or support for personal or political gain.

Money Laundering: Funneling ill-gotten gains through legitimate financial channels to conceal their origin.

Corrupt Campaign Financing: Accepting illegal campaign contributions or using campaign funds for personal expenses.

Obstruction of Justice: Interfering with investigations, destroying evidence, or intimidating witnesses to avoid accountability.

Vote Rigging: Manipulating election results through voter suppression, ballot stuffing, or other fraudulent means.

Abuse of Power: Using one's political position to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against perceived enemies or whistleblowers.

Influence Peddling: Selling access to government officials or decision-makers to private interests seeking favorable outcomes.

Gerrymandering: Manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one's political party and ensure re-election.

Lobbying Malpractice: Engaging in unethical lobbying practices, such as misrepresenting facts or exerting undue influence on legislators.

Conflict of Interest: Failing to disclose or address personal financial interests that may compromise one's ability to make impartial decisions.

Corrupt politicians undermine the principles of democracy, erode public trust in government, and divert resources away from essential public services. It's crucial to combat corruption through transparency, accountability, and legal mechanisms to uphold the integrity of political systems.

[disneydarlin]

Tim Burton's the Nightmare Before Christmas: Mayor —Aesthetic

The Mayor of Halloween Town's Character & Personality

The Mayor is literally a two-faced politician who's possibly based off of Jackal and Hyde. His two-faced head flips itself depending on his mood. When he's happy, the Mayor's face is normal. However, the opposite of his head is neurotic and paranoid when he is anxious. The Mayor is a benevolent, harmless, comedic and passionate individual. He has a keen appreciation of Halloween, especially in how it's celebrated by the residents each year. Since he loves spooky themes, the Mayor insists on planning ahead for halloween occasions. Unfortunately, he's only an elected official and can't make decisions by himself. Thus, the Mayor heavily relies on the king, which leads to him to being uncertain in his own decisions. Though he's quick to support the monarchy's plans, he'll reveal his true feelings after everything falls apart. Despite this, the Mayor is capable of showing authority. He'll lead search parties, check up on everyone and gather citizens for tasks or town meetings without any hassle. Beyond this, the Mayor seems to have a soft spot for children, though he was originally fearful of Boogie's Boys. Finally, he's musically gifted as he can sing and can conduct a band.

[entityinahumanbody]

women often discuss this falsely conceived notion that is perpetuated by men against us; said proposal being that a bond is formed on the conditions of a woman's degree of agreeability. naturally, the sentiment is dated and condemnable, but I've come to find that despite our collective disapproval of such an idea, we as women subconsciously nurture it among each other. we create rivalries within our own selves over the basis of whether or not we can find common ground with each other and are constantly ready to bash and patronize our like counterparts upon the birth of a conflict.

I notice that we are up to swiftly and enthusiastically abandon one another over differing viewpoints that aren't even necessarily harmful, just particularly controversial and requiring different sources of ammunition. it's disheartening to know that what we will not receive from men and therefore promise to gift each other: generosity & true compassion, is utterly diminishing before our very own eyes. not to mention that males thrive on the rifts created between women, deriving sexual and aesthetic pleasures from the idea that not even WE can find community between each other.

quite obviously, even male and female politicians, & our potential elected officials alike profit off of our divisiveness & proceed to feed the error of shame, rather than teaching genuine understanding & unity within specific groups, regardless of opposing stances, on EVERY side of the debate. there is no exception, no terrific outlier as long as this fire is fueled. it'd simply be naive to think otherwise.

fellow women, please let us do better for ourselves. we already have an excessively difficult time navigating society due to its inherently misogynistic structure - so why create MORE unnecessary tension & feud among our own cluster? we should all be endorsing the acts of genuinely listening, and being exceptionally considerate of one another.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

In the US it is illegal for a politician to accept gold bars or a Mercedes. Does the BRF have similar restrictions? I know they have received gems from the Middle East but at the same time Kate returns clothing freebies. Is merching legal bc they are not elected?

From the BRF’s policy on gifts:

The fundamental principle governing the acceptance of gifts by Members of The Royal Family is that no gifts, including hospitality or services, should be accepted which would, or might appear to, place the Member of The Royal Family under any obligation to the donor. In this regard, before accepting any gift, careful consideration should always be given, wherever practicable, to the donor, the reason for and occasion of the gift and the nature of the gift itself. Equally, before declining the offer of a gift, careful consideration should be given to any offence that might be caused by such action.

2.2 Gifts from businesses. Gifts offered by commercial enterprises in the UK should normally be declined, unless they are offered as a souvenir of an official visit to the enterprises' premises, to mark a Royal marriage or other special personal occasion. When gifts are accepted, the consent of the Member of The Royal Family should be contingent upon the enterprise undertaking not to exploit the gift for commercial purposes. Gifts, including samples, should always be returned unless it is not justifiable to do so on the grounds of cost. If such gifts are not returned, they should be treated as official gifts (see Section 3.2).

3.2 Definition of official gifts. Gifts are defined as official when received during an official engagement or duty or in connection with the official role or duties of a Member of The Royal Family. These include gifts: (a) presented to Members of The Royal Family by host organisers or official participants in connection with any official UK engagement or duty; (b) given by host authorities to a Member of The Royal Family on an official or working visit overseas. This covers those given by the government concerned, as well as any official body, public authority or host organisation/individual related to the Royal programme; (c) sent in by businesses and by individuals not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family; and (d) given by individuals not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family during "walkabouts" and other similar occasions.

And for the record, the US’s policies on gifts:

The Legislative Branch (Senators and Representatives):

The Judicial Branch, including Supreme Court Justices:

The Executive Branch:

For federal employees (the career civil service)

For the President’s Administration (political appointees and White House officials) - these rules are only in effect for the presidential term. New rules are issued by each President at the beginning of their term:

It’s more than gold bars and Mercedes that are unethical here in the US. Don’t bring your political snipes here, anon.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Somewhere — probably in hell — Roger Ailes, the Richard Nixon acolyte who co-founded Fox News, is smiling at the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. The majority’s ruling is another strike against the institutions that brought accountability to Ailes’ old boss over the Watergate scandal. And Ailes’ fingerprints are all over the result.

The court’s decision gifts presidents with extraordinary immunity from criminal prosecution that will hamstring the prosecution of Donald Trump over his 2020 election subversion plot. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for himself and the other five justices appointed by Republican presidents, declared that Trump and other presidents “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Roberts stipulates that Trump’s efforts to pressure Justice Department officials to support his false claims of election fraud fall under the former category, while the then-president’s attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out electoral vote slates are an example of the latter.

This is a new and radical doctrine. The majority defies “an established understanding, shared by both Presidents and the Justice Department, that former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor notes in her dissent. “Consider Watergate, for example,” Sotomayor continues. “After the Watergate tapes revealed President Nixon’s misuse of official power to obstruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Watergate burglary, President Ford pardoned Nixon. Both Ford’s pardon and Nixon’s acceptance of the pardon necessarily ‘rested on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.’”

Observers are noting — in horror or with glee — that Nixon would likely have been immune from prosecution for Watergate under the majority’s doctrine. That’s not a coincidence, but the result of a decades-long effort by the right to delegitimize and defang the institutions that stymied the Republican president — the press, the Congress, and the criminal justice system.

Ailes was part of a generation of Nixon aides who blamed the supposed depravations of liberal journalists for driving Nixon from office. Rather than accept that the former president had committed crimes and abuses of power, they organized and strategized, building the right’s massive parallel information ecosystem.

Fox is the crown jewel of that apparatus. As the network grew and solidified its audience over the years following its 1996 launch, it evolved from a right-wing propaganda machine to a GOP power center. But part of Fox’s key function is preventing Republican presidents from suffering the indignities of another Watergate. And no one has benefited more from that effort than Trump, as demonstrated by the aborted efforts to secure accountability for his attempted coup.

[...] Here, too, we see the ramifications of Ailes and his Fox apparatus. His network helped elect Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, who appointed five of the six justices who signed on to the opinion. And the three Trump appointees in particular were heavily supported by Ailes’ foot soldiers during their nomination fights, smoothing their way to the bench. Nixon’s depravities made him vulnerable to the press, Congress, and the criminal justice system. But thanks to Fox, Trump has a level of protection his predecessor lacked.

Matt Gertz wrote yesterday in Media Matters For America that Monday’s Trump v. United States SCOTUS ruling is a win for autocrats and corrupt politicians such as Donald Trump and the late Richard Nixon.

The late Fox “News” co-founder Roger Ailes has his bloodprints all over this ruling, as the reason of creating a GOP propaganda organ like Fox was to prevent another scenario in which Nixon was forced to resign as a result of Watergate.

[xtruss]

“Pakistan’s Corrupt to their Cores Army Generals, Politicians, Election Commission and Judges” Can Keep Imran Khan Out of Power, but It Can’t Keep His Popularity Down

— By Charlie Campbell | January 17, 2024 | Time Magazine

Supporters of PTI, the Most Popular Political Party of Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, rally against the national election commission’s decision to ban the party’s cricket bat symbol, in Karachi on Jan. 14, 2024. Fareed Khan—AP

It’s not been a great couple of years for Pakistan’s Imran Khan. Since his ouster as Prime Minister in an April 2022 no-confidence vote, the cricketer-turned-politician has been shot, hit with over 180 charges ranging from rioting to terrorism, and jailed in a fetid nine-by-11-foot cell following an Aug. 5 corruption conviction for allegedly selling state gifts. As Pakistan approaches fresh elections on Feb. 8, the 71-year-old’s chances of a comeback appear gossamer thin, despite retaining broad public support.

Pakistan’s military kingmakers are using every trick at their disposal to sideline the nation’s most popular politician and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Over recent months, thousands of PTI workers have been arrested, dozens of party leaders resigned following lengthy interrogations, Khan’s name was banned from mainstream media, and constituency boundary lines were redrawn to allegedly benefit his opponents. Khan’s own nomination papers have also been rejected.

“Elections are being held but I’ve got serious doubts whether real democracy or democratic principles are being followed,” says Samina Yasmeen, director of the Centre for Muslim States and Societies at the University of Western Australia.

And now Khan won’t even have his cricket bat.

On Monday, Khan’s PTI party was banned from using its iconic cricket bat logo on ballot papers, significantly hampering its chances amongst an electorate which is up to 40% illiterate. Most crucially, it effectively bans the PTI as a party and means its candidates will likely have to stand as independents, who will reportedly use a range of symbols ranging from a rollercoaster to a goat. “The election symbol is an integral component of fair elections,” Raoof Hasan, PTI’s principal spokesman and a former special assistant to Khan, tells TIME. “It’s rendering the party toothless.”

Pakistani lawmakers are constitutionally obliged to vote along party lines for certain key matters, including the leader of the house and financial legislation. But if PTI-backed candidates are officially independents, they are under no such constraints, making it much easier for the opposition to cobble together a coalition by targeting individuals with inducements. Additionally, PTI will be ineligible to receive its rightful proportion of the 200-odd parliamentary “reserved seats” for women and minorities that are allocated according to a party’s proportion of the overall vote, which would instead be divvied out to the other registered parties.

Imran Khan Waves a Cricket Bat, the Election Symbol of His Pakistan’s Most Popular PTI Party, during a rally in Faisalabad on May 5, 2013. Daniel Berehulak—Getty Images

Then again, even registering as independents has not been easy for the PTI. Each candidate must file their nomination in the constituency where they intend to stand, but PTI’s candidates frequently find their nomination papers snatched from their hands by shadowy security personnel. To avoid this, the PTI has taken to dispatching several candidates with nomination papers in the hope that one might break through the security cordon.

But even if one does manage to submit papers, each candidate requires a proposer and seconder to attend the nomination in person. On many occasions, a PTI candidate has presented his papers only to find either or both has abruptly been “kidnapped,” says Hasan, meaning that an alleged 90% of its candidates’ nomination papers have been rejected. “This is massive pre-poll rigging.”

The hurdles facing Khan and PTI stand in stark contrast to the lot dealt to Nawaz Sharif, three-time former Prime Minister, who was most recently ousted for corruption in 2017 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. In 2018, Sharif traveled to London on bail for medical treatment but absconded and remained a fugitive in exile. But on Oct. 21, an apparently healthy Sharif returned to Pakistan, where his corruption conviction was swiftly quashed and last week his lifetime ban from politics also overturned. On Monday, Sharif, 74, launched his campaign to return as Prime Minister for a fourth time—much to the chagrin of disenfranchised PTI supporters.

“The temperature is going to rise in the next few weeks when candidates step out to do rallies,” Khan’s sister, Aleema, tells TIME. “There’s going to be anger on the streets.”

It’s no secret that Pakistan’s military kingmakers have thrown their support behind Sharif, which ultimately means he’s a shoo-in to return to power. But Khan’s enduring popularity means more heavy-handed tactics will be required. Despite all PTI’s headwinds, and extremely patchy governance record while in power, a Gallup opinion poll from December shows the imprisoned Khan’s approval ratings stand at 57%, compared to 52% for Sharif. PTI remains confident that they will win if allowed to compete in a fair fight.

“People, especially at the grassroot level, are very pro-Imran Khan,” says Yasmeen. “Even if he tells them to vote for a piece of furniture, it will be elected.”

Corrupt to His Core, Thief, Looter, Traitor, Money Launderer, Morally Bankrupted Boak Bollocks and Pakistan Army’s Production Pakistan's Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addresses his supporters in Lahore on Oct. 21, 2023. Aamir Qureshi—AFP/Getty Images

A big question is why the international community has been so muted in the face of such brazen irregularities—especially the U.S., which under the Joe Biden administration claims to have made democracy promotion a key foreign policy priority. The stakes are high; nuclear-armed Pakistan is drowning in $140 billion of external debt, while ordinary people are battling with Asia’s highest inflation, with food prices rising 38.5% year-on-year.

The truth is that Khan has few friends in the West after prioritizing relations with Russia and China. “From a Washington perspective, anyone would be better than Khan,” says Michael Kugelman, the director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.

Sharif, by contrast, is perceived as business-friendly and pro-America. Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington’s foreign policy priorities have shifted to China, Ukraine, and now Gaza. Yet the importance of a trusted partner in Islamabad was made plain this week following an Iranian airstrike on alleged Sunni militants in Pakistan territory that killed at least two children and threatens a further escalation of the violence already roiling the Middle East.

American priorities in Pakistan are keeping a lid on terrorism and stabilizing relations with arch-nemesis India—and Sharif has a better record on both. However, these priorities aren’t necessarily shared by Pakistan’s military overlords, who may be backing Sharif today but have engineered his ouster thrice in the past—once via a coup d’état. There remains “a lot of bad blood between Nawaz and the military,” says Kugelman, “even if he were to become the next Prime Minister, civil-military relations could take the same turn for the worse.”

After all, no Pakistan Prime Minister has ever completed a full term—and if Sharif gets back in, few would bet on him becoming the first at the fourth time of asking. It may be part of the reason why Khan has adopted a stoic disposition despite the deprivations of his prison cell. “He is cold in jail but quite happy,” says Aleema Khan. “He’s read so many books, maybe two to three every day, and he’s very content to have this retreat time—spiritually, mentally, and physically, he says he feels better.”

Perhaps content in the knowledge that, while February’s election may be beyond hope, in Pakistan you may be down, but you’re never truly out. And that’s all the more reason to keep fighting. “We shall be in the election,” says Hasan. “We’re not going to back off, we’re not going to walk away, we’re not going to forfeit even a single seat throughout the country.”

[noisycowboyglitter]

Exploring Kamala Harris's Journey to Madam President in 2024

The phrase "Madam President Kamala Harris 2024" encapsulates the aspirations of supporters who envision Harris ascending to the presidency. As the current Vice President and a groundbreaking figure in American politics, Harris represents for many the potential for further progress in representation and leadership.

Buy now:19.95$

Speculation about a Harris presidency in 2024 stems from various scenarios. Some supporters hope for her to become the Democratic nominee, while others consider the possibility of her assuming the role if the incumbent president doesn't seek re-election. However, as of my last update in early 2024, President Biden had indicated his intention to run for re-election with Harris as his running mate.

If Harris were to become president, she would make history as the first woman, first Black person, and first person of South Asian descent to hold the office. This prospect energizes many voters who see her potential presidency as a significant milestone in American democracy.

Buy now

Harris's supporters point to her experience as Vice President, U.S. Senator, and California Attorney General as qualifications for the presidency. They often highlight her stance on issues such as healthcare reform, racial justice, and climate change.

Critics and opponents, however, question her readiness for the role and disagree with her policy positions. The idea of "Madam President Kamala Harris" in 2024 remains a topic of debate and speculation in political discourse.

Buy now

As with any potential presidential candidate, the coming months will be crucial in shaping the political landscape leading up to the 2024 election.

Selecting the best gift for a politician requires thoughtfulness and consideration of their public role. Practical items like high-quality leather portfolios, sophisticated pens, or personalized stationery can be both useful and appreciated. Books on political history, leadership, or biographies of influential figures are often well-received.

Buy now

For a more personal touch, consider items that reflect the politician's home state or district, such as locally crafted goods or artwork. Patriotic-themed gifts, like flag cufflinks or a beautifully bound copy of the Constitution, can be appropriate.

Charitable donations made in the politician's name to causes they support can be meaningful and align with their public service ethos. Lastly, consider experience gifts, such as tickets to a local cultural event or a guided tour of a historical site, which can provide a welcome respite from their busy schedule.

[thelovelygods]

Tim Dunn was fascinated by bees. When he was a teenager, he spent hours studying a colony near his home, learning how it functioned. Each bee knew its role and embraced its work. Scouts found pollen. Guards prevented unwelcome outsiders from entering the hive. He even discovered that the larger drones didn’t sting, creating an opportunity for amusement. “I’d tie a piece of thread on them and walk them like a dog,” he said in a folksy West Texas accent.

His audience, the adult Sunday school class he teaches at his church in Midland, was gathered inside a gray-walled room lined with stackable chairs. Dunn went on, explaining that there was a lot to learn from the hierarchy of a bee colony. “When everybody does what they do best for the hive, it prospers,” he said. “If you’re a guard, then be a guard. If you’re a scout, be a scout.” Dunn then contrasted the cooperation of the hive with the inexorable tumult of modern politics. “Why do people hate politics?” he asked. “Everybody’s making it all about themselves,” he said. “Does it create harmony? Are people there trying to serve the body with their gifts? That’s why you hate it. It’s an example of what not to do.”

You may not think about Tim Dunn. Indeed, unless you’re a close observer of Texas politics, it’s likely you haven’t heard of him. But Dunn thinks a lot about you.

He grew up in Big Spring, about forty miles northeast of Midland, with three older brothers in a cramped house. He now lives in a mansion, hidden within a roughly twenty-acre walled compound on the northern edge of Midland. Nearby is the nondenominational church where he regularly delivers sermons as a lay minister. The Dunns are one of Texas’s wealthiest families, having acquired inexpensive leases in the Permian Basin years before fracking made it possible to extract oil and gas from fields previously thought to be in decline. As a political power broker, he mostly operates behind the scenes, routinely writing six- and seven-figure checks. This money is only the visible portion of a political operation that shapes the agenda in Austin and is feared by many Republican elected officials.

Throughout its history, Texas has seen plenty of influential men who have shared their message from the pulpit. And a steady march of rich men have opened their wallets to get politicians to do what they want. But we’ve never seen the two archetypes merge in quite this way. Dunn has said he believes we’re in the midst of a holy battle that pits Christians against those he refers to as Marxists, who he claims want to control all property and take away freedom. Marxists “are increasingly becoming bolder and more brazen in their quest for tyranny,” he has warned. “It is becoming clear they want to kill us.” The founder of Marxism, he argued, wasn’t Karl Marx. It was Satan. 

For Dunn, politics, work, and religion all run together. “I have very deliberately unsegmented my life,” he said in 2022 on a podcast hosted by Ken Harrison, the chair of Promise Keepers, a national evangelical group for men. “I don’t have one approach in business and another approach in ministry and another approach in church . . . I work for God, and God has given me a bunch of jobs to do.”  

In the past two years Dunn has become the largest individual source of campaign money in the state by far. Until recently his main tool for exerting influence has been the Defend Texas Liberty PAC, to which he has given at least $9.85 million since the beginning of 2022. This is nearly all the money he contributed to Texas races over that span and the majority raised by the committee. The political action committee targets Republicans, many of them quite conservative, whom it deems insufficiently loyal to the organization’s right-wing agenda. Dunn is not a passive donor who will dole out a few thousand dollars after a phone call and some flattering chitchat. The funding machine he has built is designed to steer politics and control politicians. 

Its methods are deceptively simple. A Dunn-affiliated organization lets lawmakers know how it wants them to vote on key issues of the legislative session. After the session, it assigns a number, from zero to one hundred, to each lawmaker based on these votes. Republicans who score high, in the eighties or nineties, are likely to remain in Dunn’s good graces. But those who see their scores drift down to the seventies or even sixties—who, in other words, legislate independently? Their fate is easy to predict. 

They’ll likely face a primary opponent, often someone little known in the community, whose campaign bank account is filled by donations from Dunn and his allies. This cash provides access to political consultants and operations that can be used to spread false and misleading attacks on Dunn’s targets, via social media feeds, glossy mailers, and text messages. “They told you point blank: if you don’t vote the way we tell you, we’re going to score against you,” said Bennett Ratliff, a Republican former state representative from Dallas County. “And if you don’t make a good score, we’re going to run against you. It was not a thumb on the scale—it was flat extortion.” Ratliff lost in 2014 to a Dunn-backed right-wing candidate, Matt Rinaldi, who scored a perfect one hundred in the next two sessions and quickly amassed power: Rinaldi now serves as the combative and divisive chair of the state GOP.

According to several sources involved in Texas politics, what Dunn demands from his candidates, even more than electoral victory, is fealty. He tends to win, sooner or later, one way or another. Sometimes his preferred candidates win the primary and, given the gerrymandering that favors Republicans in most districts in Texas, waltz into office. But even when his candidates lose, the reelected incumbents have been battered by negative rhetoric and have begged and borrowed to raise funds to counter the attacks. Many are left wondering if it’s worth fighting back. Some have chosen to get out of politics entirely. Notable recent retirements include former state senator Kel Seliger and Representative Andrew Murr, both of whom were centrist Republicans who commanded respect from colleagues in both parties and acted as brakes on Dunn’s agenda.

As his wealth has grown, Dunn has used it to support private companies that align with his goals. Through his financial vehicle Hexagon Partners, he recently invested in Christian Halls, whose chief executive says his vision is to create Christian community colleges and trade schools “in every county of the nation in the next ten years.” Also through Hexagon Partners, Dunn invested $7.5 million in a company affiliated with Brad Parscale, who worked in San Antonio targeting swing voters with digital advertising before he became manager of Donald Trump’s failed 2020 presidential campaign. That firm plans to build a “Christian-based” advertising agency that will use artificial intelligence to precisely target consumers with commercial and political messages.

In the past several years Dunn has become involved with multiple online media operations. “You can’t trust the newspapers,” he wrote in a 2018 letter to voters. But apparently you can trust Texas Scorecard, a political website that is often critical of politicians who don’t support his agenda. Texas Scorecard was published by Empower Texans, a group largely funded by Dunn that then became a separate organization in 2020. It continues to publish articles that are generally critical of candidates Dunn opposes. 

He has also been an officer with Chicago-based Pipeline Media, which maintains a network of websites designed to look like independent local media outlets but that churn out often-partisan articles that amplify stances taken by special interest groups. The Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University found that this network has attacked renewable energy and advocated for property tax cuts. Further, Dunn is a longtime board member of the Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of the website Ballotpedia, which provides information on federal, state, and local elections. It recently launched an “ultra-local” initiative, publishing updates on candidate positions and endorsements in areas that have become news deserts after the closures of local newspapers. The site reported more than a quarter billion page views in 2022. 

Dunn generally steers clear of news outlets he doesn’t control. He did not respond to multiple requests for interviews with Texas Monthly, nor did he or his attorney respond to a detailed list of questions. Many of those closest to Dunn declined to be interviewed, and many elected officials refused to speak about him, often out of fear of reprisal. To report this story, I spoke with more than thirty people who know him or work in his orbit; listened to hundreds of hours of his sermons, speeches, and Sunday school lessons; and conducted an exhaustive search of corporate records and tax filings, among other documents.

Dunn’s voluminous political enterprises are all sidelines to what has long been his main gig. He is chief executive of CrownQuest Operating. While not well-known outside oil-industry circles, it controls a significant portion of the Permian Basin. In 2022 it was the eighth-largest oil producer in Texas. It operated wells that pumped out about 35 million barrels that year, worth more than $3 billion. In December, Occidental Petroleum agreed to purchase the company’s wells and oil reserves for $12 billion, including assumption of debt. Dunn and his family own about 20 percent of these assets. They stand to collect a windfall worth a couple billion dollars. Once the sale is completed, Dunn presumably will have more time—and more money—for his political interests.

Some of Dunn’s critics are quick to note that he and the candidates he backs have posted a poor overall record of electoral success. While there’s some truth to that claim, it misses the point. Yes, Dunn has, in essence, single-handedly financed the campaigns of inexperienced, extremist candidates who have failed to connect with voters. Nonetheless, these campaigns—and the promise of future, amply bankrolled, mudslinging challengers—have led incumbents to either acquiesce to his agenda or retire. Even when Dunn loses, he often wins. 

Moreover, he is a major donor to some of the most prominent politicians in Texas. He was instrumental in helping Dan Patrick get elected lieutenant governor, arguably the most powerful office in the state. When Patrick first ran for that office, in 2014, he entered a runoff against incumbent David Dewhurst. In the final days before the election, Empower Texans gave Patrick $350,000 and secured for him a $300,000 loan from a Houston bank. The money helped pay for a last-minute blitz of advertising on television and on Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

Dunn is also a longtime backer of Texas attorney general Ken Paxton and helped him escape impeachment last year for abuse of public trust and other corruption-related charges. Prior to Paxton’s trial, Jonathan Stickland, the head of Defend Texas Liberty, made it clear he was ready to spend Dunn’s money to go after any official who voted to oust the attorney general. “There will be one helluva price to pay,” he warned in a tweet, and then added: “Wait till you see my PAC budget.”

That wasn’t the only step Dunn took to protect his ally. Before the impeachment trial in the Texas Senate, Defend Texas Liberty gave Patrick—who chose to preside as judge in the proceeding—$1 million in campaign donations and a $2 million forgivable loan. This is thirty times more than Defend Texas Liberty gave Patrick in 2022, when he was running for reelection. Strictly speaking, it wasn’t a bribe—it was all perfectly legal under state law—and Patrick has denied any quid pro quo. 

Still, as soon as the final votes to acquit the attorney general were cast, Patrick discarded his veil of impartiality and delivered a caustic rebuke to the House leadership for wasting everyone’s time. Despite abundant evidence of Paxton’s corruption, Patrick argued that the House should never have impeached the attorney general. Representative Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat who served as an impeachment manager, told Texas Monthly that this tirade made it clear the fix had been in from the moment Patrick grabbed the gavel. 

Later, the Texas Tribune reported on a meeting between infamous white supremacist Nick Fuentes and Stickland, who prior to leading Defend Texas Liberty was a state representative to whom Dunn had contributed handsomely. Patrick was quick to condemn Fuentes but slow to criticize Stickland and the PAC. He never returned the money he’d received from the group. Instead he invested it in Israeli bonds, which his campaign treasurer could presumably sell at a later date or simply collect interest payments on for years. 

Increasingly, Dunn is active in politics outside Texas. In October 2022 he gave $250,000 to the new Stand for Freedom PAC, nearly all of the money it had raised since its inception earlier that year. The so-called super PAC, which is based in Georgia and can raise unlimited funds, spent $190,000 on congressional races across the country that fall. It supported nine right-wing candidates. A couple of days before the election, it spent $10,000 on text messages in suburban Atlanta, half of them in support of the Republican challenger and half attacking a Democratic incumbent.

Dunn also gave $1 million in the summer and fall of 2022 to the Conservation Action for America PAC (out of $1.05 million it raised). The PAC gave $500,000 to another PAC, which supported right-wing candidates in Senate races in Alabama and Missouri. But for now, most of Dunn’s time and fortune remain focused on Texas.

Dunn is up-front about his desire to use politics to pave the way for a “New Earth,” in which Jesus Christ and his believers will live together. (“When heaven comes to earth and God dwells with his people as the King,” Dunn has said.) Until then, he remains a key player in the growing Christian nationalism movement, which rejects the importance of pluralism to American identity. Instead it contends that only devout Christians are good Americans. 

Last August was even more sweltering than usual in Midland. It did not rain and the sun was relentless, the dusty earth baked by triple-digit heat. But on the final Sunday of the month, as usual, Midland Bible Church was welcomingly cool. A few parishioners sat with computer monitors in the back of the sanctuary running the audio and visuals. A video message played on two large screens on either side of a large wooden cross. “Jesus is better than the angels,” said a soothing female voice. “Jesus is better than Moses,” said a male voice. 

When the video faded and the lights came up, Dunn was standing on an elevated stage with a few loose pages of notes arranged on a four-legged metal pulpit. Behind him were the praise band’s instruments, including a six-string guitar and an electronic keyboard. The altar’s backdrop consisted of distressed wooden slats and hanging Edison bulbs that wouldn’t look out of place in a barn renovated by Chip and Joanna Gaines.

Dunn greeted the congregation with the ease and comfort of a man in his element. He has been a member of the church for more than two decades. About a decade ago the congregation moved into its modern home, a $12 million building with seating for five hundred in the sanctuary, which you enter through wooden doors from a large common area furnished with couches and sided by a wall of glass. After services Dunn can be found standing outside the wooden doors, coffee in hand, greeting friends and well-wishers. Across the street from the church stands a stone wall that surrounds Dunn’s family compound. Around the corner, just out of view, is the private K–12 Christian school Dunn founded in 1998.

That Sunday, Dunn was dressed in a short-sleeved lavender polo and gray slacks. He’s a few inches taller than six feet and has the lanky, fit build of a former basketball player. His white hair was neatly parted. He wore a lavalier microphone that reached from behind his left ear, giving him the appearance of a corporate executive ready to fire up a roomful of salespeople.

He started with a joke about a church elder’s mustache (“Is that Wyatt Earp?”) and then began to talk about the book of Hebrews. It can be difficult to understand, he says. “The Jewish culture is not the same as ours,” he notes. “I have a lot of Jewish friends,” he said, and they are like cactus fruit: “sweet on the inside and prickly on the outside.” 

This wasn’t the first time Dunn had opined on Jews. In 2010 he attended a private breakfast meeting with Joe Straus, the first Jewish Speaker of the House in the Texas Legislature. According to Straus insiders, Dunn told him that only Christians should hold leadership positions. When Texas Monthly first reported that encounter, in 2018, it shocked many in Austin’s political class. Dunn’s influence has grown since then, and his worldview has sunk even deeper roots in Texas. 

Dunn’s sermon that August day came at a crucial juncture in Texas politics. A few months before, a bipartisan majority in the state’s House of Representatives had voted to impeach the attorney general for abusing the power of his office. Dunn had responded in late June by donating $150,000 to Paxton and $1.8 million to Defend Texas Liberty, which turned around and gave Patrick that infamous seven-figure donation and loan. It’s not clear whether the events unfolding in Austin were on Dunn’s mind as he drafted his sermon, but one of his principal messages involved a religious and political battle.

He retold a portion of the biblical story of Exodus. In popular culture—think of The Ten Commandments, with a strapping young Charlton Heston as Moses—the story focuses on the Israelites’ rebellion against the pharaohs, their escape from enslavement and departure from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the reaching of a covenant with God in the desert. Dunn picked up the story from there. Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the Israelites who fled Egypt were still in the desert, but they were eyeing the fertile region adjacent to the Jordan River, in what is now the Israeli-occupied West Bank. So they sent scouts to see what was there. 

The reconnaissance party reported that it was a bountiful region, a “land of milk and honey,” but there were obstacles to settling there. “The spies came back, and the spies said, ‘Ooh, this is too hard,’ ” Dunn said. “It is a really good land, just like God said, but man, there’s giants and walled cities. I don’t think we can do it.” Yet God urged them onward, Dunn said. Failure to fight, he suggested, would mean disobeying God. In his telling, it was a story of righteous conquest, not of escape.

He continued: “Everyone unwilling to fight did not get the reward. It’s a very poignant picture. No fight, no reward.” Here he paused briefly. He’d been looking to his right. He turned to the left, his hands gripping the pulpit. As he continued, he formed a fist with his thumb extended and pointed it at his chest. “Our giants and walled cities are a culture that hates everything we stand for. Are we willing to fight? If we are, we can’t lose, even if we die.”

Parts of his message can be heard in churches across Texas every Sunday. But how many such sermons are delivered by lay preachers who write $1 million checks to politicians and political action committees? How many are delivered by billionaires who are building an army of influence? Whose power and connections make them insiders even as they see themselves as outsiders trying to overthrow entrenched interests? How many believe that only Christians should lead Texas, to the exclusion of millions of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and secular Texans?

Dunn holds several views that veer outside the mainstream. In late 2022 he delivered a sermon titled “How to Truly Love Your Spouse.” Before he began speaking, he played a brief video quoting from the First Epistle of Peter. It advises women, who are “the weaker vessel,” not to braid their hair or wear too much gold jewelry. They should “adorn themselves by submitting to their own husbands.” When the video ended, Dunn was at the pulpit. He praised the narrator’s deep bass voice, noting it was that of his eldest son. “Don’t you love Lee’s voice? Sounds like God reading us scripture, doesn’t it?” He later talked about his view that men’s brains are structured differently from women’s: men are superior problem solvers, while women tend to be more articulate. 

Dunn advised men to invite their wives into their professional lives. His wife, Terri, homeschooled their children for sixteen years. When their youngest was in college, playing basketball for Texas Tech University, they would take long trips to watch his games. She would read Dunn’s emails to him as he drove. She liked feeling involved, Dunn said, so he gave her the password to his email account. She also listens to political talk shows, something he doesn’t like to do, and keeps him up to speed on what pundits are saying. This “helps her feel like a part of everything I’m doing,” Dunn explained. “Women were designed as helpers.”

Chris Tackett neverintended to become the foremost chronicler of Dunn’s political influence. But sometimes curiosity charts an unexpected course. On a cool fall day, I met Tackett at a hip coffee shop a few blocks south of downtown Fort Worth. He wore blue jeans and a maroon T-shirt from a New York City bookstore and carried a MacBook Air loosely with one hand. In his early fifties, Tackett is fit, with thick, graying hair. By day, he works in human resources for a food processing company. In his spare time he has built a tool to track how a rising flood of money is reshaping Texas politics. 

Just a few years ago, he was the volunteer director of a youth baseball league in Granbury, about forty miles southwest of where we met, when he decided he could do more for his community. So he ran for a school board seat. It was one of those life decisions that seemed innocuous at the time but turned out to be momentous. 

He won the nonpartisan election and, by dint of his new responsibilities, became more involved in state education issues. The board communicated its priorities to Mike Lang, Granbury’s state representative, and Tackett assumed that Lang would be an ally. But when the school board asked Lang to vote for certain bills that protected the district’s funding, Tackett says Lang took the opposite position. Lang took other votes that Tackett felt were not in the best interest of local public schools. The board opposed vouchers, for example, which would allow taxpayer money to be used for private schools, potentially diverting needed revenue from the public school system. Yet Lang supported pro-voucher amendments. Curious about why, Tackett decided to look at the sources of Lang’s campaign contributions. “I mean, what else would it be other than money?” he recalled thinking.

He downloaded campaign finance reports from the state. They were bulky and hard to decipher, but years of working in corporate jobs had made him nimble with spreadsheets. To his surprise, most of the money Lang received wasn’t coming from constituents in $50 or $100 amounts. Instead, he’d collected a $2,000 check from Dunn and nearly half a million dollars from Farris and Joanna Wilks. Farris is an oilman and an elder in the Assembly of Yahweh, a church run by his family near Cisco, about fifty miles east of Abilene. The Assembly of Yahweh was founded by Wilks’s father and grandfather, and it blends elements of Christianity and Judaism. 

Tackett also found a $25,000 contribution from Empower Texans’ political action committee. When he looked up who was giving to Empower Texans, he found six- and seven-figure checks from the same names: Dunn and Wilks, both of whom have worked to undermine public education in favor of parochial and other private schools. (The PAC ultimately gave Lang more than $150,000.) “Holy cow,” Tackett thought. “This is why no one is listening. This is why this legislator isn’t listening.”

After we ordered coffees, Tackett opened his laptop and logged on to the rudimentary website he’d built, called Chris Tackett Now, to publish what he’d turned up. Soon after launching it, his wife, Mendi, a florist, got involved. What began with Lang’s contribution data has grown exponentially. Texas has electronic records for campaign contributions going back to 2000. Tackett grabbed everything, more than 300,000 individual records. Anyone can download files from a state website to see who gave money to, say, Governor Abbott in the first six months of 2022. But that’s a bit like focusing on a single star through a telescope. Tackett brought all the records together so he could look at the entire night sky. He may have been the first person to see it all, the entire campaign cosmology.

I asked Tackett to guide me through what he’d found. We started by looking at who has given the most money to Texas politicians since 2000. The answer, surprisingly, was Tony Sanchez, a Laredo oilman who largely self-financed a quixotic $58 million run for governor two decades ago, creating a feckless orgy of political spending in a few months. After him, there’s a drop and then three more names: grocery magnate Charles Butt, an avid proponent of public education, and Houston homebuilder Bob Perry—and then Tim Dunn. (Pennsylvania billionaire financier Jeff Yass, a school voucher advocate, gave $6 million to Abbott in December, but he still falls far behind the cumulative spending of these four and others.) Perry died a decade ago, and Butt has reserved most of his political contributions for his education PAC. Meanwhile, Dunn has sped up.  

We looked up Dunn’s contributions since 2000 and found he had given $14.3 million, a figure that struck me as low. Tackett told me to wait. He plugged in name variations: Tim Dunn, Timothy Dunn, Tim M. Dunn, TIM DUNN, Timothy M. Dunn, and so on. The number kept rising until it topped $24.5 million. He gave nearly $11 million—nearly half his total—just between January 2022 and the end of 2023. 

Under state law, contributions to nonjudicial candidates and PACs aren’t capped but must be disclosed to the Texas Ethics Commission. But there’s another category of expenditure, to “social welfare organizations,” that is called dark money because the donors can remain invisible. These groups cannot give money to a candidate, but they can produce “voter guides” that explicitly point out that only one candidate is, say, a “strong Christian conservative” (however that may be defined). In other words, there are means to push voters’ buttons in ways that are hard to track. As in cosmology, what we can see in the night sky is only part of what’s out there.

Still, what was visible told a story. From 2000 until 2015, the big donors in Texas politics tended to be pro-business. They wanted to make it harder to sue corporations—Texans for Lawsuit Reform was still at the height of its power—and they lobbied to spend taxpayer dollars to attract out-of-state companies. The business of Texas, these donors believed, was business. Dunn and other megadonors shared those views, but they had other priorities. The schism came to a head over the 2017 “bathroom bill,” which would have targeted transgender Texans by requiring them in some instances to use restrooms associated with the gender listed on their birth certificate. Dunn backed the bill, but the business lobby opposed it, fearing a backlash that would’ve harmed their companies’ profits. The old guard prevailed. 

Since then, though, Dunn and his allies have racked up victories, including passing a ban on abortions (before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision) and another bill prohibiting minors from receiving gender-affirming care. Nowadays, the business of Texas is to promote not just business but also a right-wing Christian worldview. “There’s a handful of billionaires trying to pull the strings across the state and pull Texas all the way to the right,” Tackett said.

Dunn has deviated from the pro-business camp in other ways. The previous generation of big donors often supported public schools in the interest of training the future workforce. Dunn has long advocated for drastically cutting property taxes, which are the major source of funding for public schools, police, and other essential services in a state that collects no income tax. He backs private Christian schooling and was involved in a recent failed effort to defeat a $1.4 billion bond for Midland public schools.

The fight over school vouchers became perhaps the most contentious policy issue during the 2023 legislative session, a key reason why Abbott called four special sessions. Dunn recently said he is “basically uninvolved” in the effort to pass voucher legislation, but he’s underplaying his influence. He gave $37,500 to the Texas Federation for Children PAC, a leading proponent of vouchers. Advocates from the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the America First Policy Institute, organizations for which Dunn has served as a board member, testified last year in favor of voucher bills, as did Matt Rinaldi, whom Dunn backed as a state house candidate and leader of the Texas GOP. What’s more, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, the Dunn-affiliated lawmaker scorecard, has consistently given high marks for votes that allow use of public money to help pay private school tuition. (These grades are not just given after the fact; a lawsuit turned up extensive evidence that longtime Dunn ally Michael Quinn Sullivan communicated to lawmakers before the votes how each would be scored, arguably telling them how to vote if they wished to avoid a well-funded backlash when the score came out.) 

Tackett sees the voucher push as an attempt to undercut public schools and bolster Christian education. “This was all part of this broader agenda that was to inject religion into our government and erode trust in the government,” Tackett said. He and Mendi are six years into this project and have no plans to stop. “There are days we feel burned out,” he said. But then he uncovers more evidence that Dunn is leading an effort to buy public officials, subvert the state’s democracy, and bend it to his ideology, and that energizes him to keep going. “Democracy is much more at risk than I think most people realize,” he said.

Many of Dunn’s convictions can be traced to his childhood. Back when he was playing with that beehive as a boy around the late sixties, his hometown of Big Spring was experiencing a growth spurt. Webb Air Force Base trained military pilots. Regional oil companies were headquartered there. Big Spring was home to the largest oil refinery in the region, a Sears, and a bowling alley that offered babysitting while parents got in ten frames. There were about 45 churches, half of them Baptist, in a city of some 30,000. Thirty of them sent singers to annual summer gospel concerts, held in an outdoor amphitheater, organized by Dunn’s father.

Joe Dunn sold insurance to farmers and ranchers and was active in a local Baptist church. In 1961 he added his name to a resolution asking President John F. Kennedy not to serve alcohol at the White House. His wife, Thelma, was a homemaker. Both grew up on farms near Lubbock and moved to California’s Central Valley in search of work during the Great Depression. They met there and married in 1937. Joe worked as a farm laborer and later at a cotton gin. They had three sons in the span of six years while in California. Ten years passed before they had their fourth and final child, Tim, in 1955. By then, they had returned to Texas and would soon settle in Big Spring.

Tim Dunn excelled at both academics and athletics at Big Spring High School. The local newspaper listed him as six feet three inches tall, and he started for the varsity basketball team. He was outshone by a classmate named Tom Sorley, who played quarterback for the football team and would go on to play for the University of Nebraska. Both were members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Dunn was second in charge; Sorley was president. Dunn was a “class favorite”; Sorley was “Mr. BSHS” and “School Beast.”

Like Dunn’s colony of bees, Big Spring High operated as an ordered society where students mostly played their assigned roles. Members of the football team’s female booster club, called the Golddiggers, spent a week feeding and pampering the players. “Golddiggers became slaves to the varsity squad for one week,” explained the 1972 yearbook. It ran a photo from an event in which a Golddigger “serves her master” by preparing him a plate of food.

Dunn shared a love of music with his father, Joe, who sang at Baptist revivals and played the fiddle. Years later, retired and living in California, he led a band called Joe Dunn & the Foothill Seniors. While in high school Tim Dunn played guitar in a band called Scrub Brotherhood. The Big Spring Herald reported that it played a combination of rock, country, and “cuddle” music. Ron McKee, the drummer, told me they listened to a lot of Grand Funk Railroad and played covers as well as some original songs written by Dunn. One song McKee recalls was titled “My Prayer.” 

McKee, who attended school with Dunn from elementary school through college, said his friend was religious and straitlaced, and held strong opinions and beliefs. “I don’t believe I ever heard Tim Dunn say a cussword in all my time around him. I don’t ever remember him getting into a fight or taking a drink,” he said. Dunn was nonetheless fun to be around. One time in high school they got bored and took the handlebars off two tricycles and attached upside-down drum stands so they could steer while standing up, as on foot-propelled scooters. They piloted them to the Sonic and back, a roughly five-mile round trip. “We had cars, but we wanted to come up with something silly to do,” McKee said. “No one got arrested or hurt.”

Dunn attended Texas Tech University. He studied chemical engineering and wound down by watching episodes of Laverne & Shirley. He was wed on May 14, 1977, a year before he graduated, to Terri Spannaus, the daughter of an Air Force colonel stationed in Big Spring. They remain married and have six adult children. At least two of the kids inherited the Dunns’ musical talent: David records Christian music in Nashville, and Wally sings and plays guitar at Midland Bible Church.

A month before Tim and Terri married, he wrote a letter to the Texas Tech student newspaper about the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that would enshrine equal protection for men and women under American law. The letter is remarkable for its certainty, and it appears to be Dunn’s first public airing of his political views. He opposed the ERA, writing that the amendment would give “homosexuals equal protection under the law . . . Public schools and, yes, even private Christian schools will not be able to refuse to hire a teacher because he is a homosexual.” (His desire to keep private Christian schools free of government regulations remains intact, as does his animosity toward LGBTQ rights.)

After graduating from Tech, Dunn worked at Exxon for two years, in Houston. In 1980 he was hired by First City Bancorp, which traced its lineage to 1866 and was one of the largest banks in Texas. In the mid-eighties the bank moved Dunn to Midland, where he served as the head of commercial lending. In December 1984, First City ran a nearly full-page ad in the business section of the Midland Reporter-Telegram. “We Know Oil & Gas,” it read. “We know Midland!” It featured a drawing of several bankers. Prominently positioned in the middle was a confident, smiling Dunn.

Like many Texas banks, First City boomed when strong oil prices buoyed the state economy. But during the final months of 1985 global oil prices began souring. Texas saw massive job losses and a surge in bankruptcies. First City had “aggressively expanded during the early eighties to capitalize on the energy-driven Texas boom and found itself particularly vulnerable,” said Sorin Sorescu, a professor of finance at Texas A&M University who has studied regional banks. In September 1987, First City needed a nearly $1 billion bailout from the federal government. It was, at the time, the second-largest bank rescue ever. Dunn appears to have left the troubled institution right before the bailout; the bank’s financial condition couldn’t have been a surprise to anyone paying attention. 

In July, two months before the bailout, a new oil firm was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based in Midland, it was focused on drilling in Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado. It was called Parker & Parsley Development Partners, and Dunn was a general partner. He remained a top executive as the company grew. By 1995, however, it was foundering and announced a series of belt-tightening measures and a shuffling of its management. Dunn stepped down from the board and took on the role of managing operations in two of the company’s most productive regions. Only one executive remained on the board: Scott Sheffield, who would go on to lead the company for years. Parker & Parsley later renamed itself Pioneer Natural Resources and became a top oil company in the Permian. Last year Exxon Mobil agreed to purchase it for $59.5 billion, in one of the largest oil field deals in two decades. 

A year after leaving the board, Dunn cofounded his own Midland-based oil company, which would become one of the largest producers in Texas, although one fourth the size of Pioneer. As he built his company, Dunn inched into politics. In 1996 he served as a delegate to the state Republican convention. By this time he and Terri were beginning to construct a private cocoon around their family. They homeschooled their children, developing a curriculum that emphasized reading great books from the Western canon. The Dunns approached like-minded families, recruiting the parents of fifteen students and founding a new school, Midland Classical Academy, that met behind their church. Students attended classes two days a week and studied at home the other three. 

Ron Miller, the dean of students, told a reporter in 2001 that Christianity was incorporated into every classroom and lesson. “Here, I’m allowed to speak my mind about Jesus Christ,” he said. “Everything we do is centered around the role God has in our life.” The school eventually moved to a new multimillion-dollar building on the north side of Midland, where the homes give way to scrubland dotted by an occasional pump jack. Parents were encouraged to volunteer. Dunn served as the assistant girls’ basketball coach.

The first substantial campaign check Dunn wrote was in February 2002: ten thousand dollars to Free Enterprise PAC. Its legislative wish list, according to a report it printed at the time, included bills that would “prohibit homosexual marriages and adoptions” and “require a super majority to increase taxes.” The PAC printed a ranking of most-to-least conservative legislators, a strategy later adopted by Dunn-backed groups such as Empower Texans and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. 

In the period when Dunn contributed, Free Enterprise PAC spent nearly $66,000 supporting Republican candidates for the state House, with most of that going to those it deemed most conservative. The biggest beneficiary was a little-known lawyer running in a five-way contest for an open seat in Collin County. It was his first electoral victory. His name was Ken Paxton. 

Free Enterprise spent even more on mailings attacking six Republican incumbents—half in the House and half in the Senate—each of whom scored low in the group’s rankings. Several days before the primary election, acting lieutenant governor Bill Ratliff, one of the six, denounced Free Enterprise PAC. Its mailings, which featured a photograph of two men kissing and another of two grooms cutting a wedding cake, claimed Ratliff supported a “radical homosexual agenda.” His alleged sin was voting for a hate crimes bill named after James Byrd Jr., a Black man who in 1998 was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by three white men in the East Texas town of Jasper. The bill allowed heightened penalties for crimes motivated by the victim’s identity, including race or sexual orientation. 

All six of the incumbents targeted by the PAC won reelection, but Ratliff was incensed by the group’s tactics. “This type of hate-mongering is reminiscent of the Nazis. This type of hate-mongering is reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan,” he said. “This type of hate-mongering is now being practiced by the al Qaeda and the Taliban.” The negative press and attention from prominent Republicans didn’t deter Dunn. In 2006 he gave another $10,000 to the group right before the general election. Since that first check in 2002, he has made more than 225 donations of at least $10,000.

Dunn’s campaign cash washes through multiple political action committees and helps support various bands of right-wing political activists. The Texas Voice reported that shortly after Thanksgiving a little-known group called the Texas Family Project blasted out text messages that attacked select Republican lawmakers. The messages claimed that those legislators voted in favor of funding to help transgender Texans transition from the gender they were assigned at birth. This was hogwash. 

All of the targeted Republicans voted for Senate Bill 14, a law passed last year and signed by Abbott that banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth; further, it required Texas to revoke medical licenses for doctors who didn’t comply. Their apparent transgression was not voting for an anti-transgender amendment on an unrelated bill, creating a gossamer thread of truth to the text message’s claim. In reality, these Republicans were singled out and castigated not for their position on transgender Texans but for having the gall to vote independently. (In late January, the same outfit sent anti-Muslim mailers assailing several Republicans in the Legislature.)

Dunn’s connection to Texas Family Project is labyrinthine and apparent only after some digging. The group was created in 2022 by Brady Gray, a pastor turned political activist from Weatherford, about thirty miles west of Fort Worth. On the same day in April, he founded two groups: Texas Family Project and Texas Family Project Foundation. One is a nonprofit charity and the other is a dark-money “social welfare group.” Both can keep their donors anonymous, making it nearly impossible to determine who is funding the organizations. 

Before running these outfits full time, Gray was chief executive of Pale Horse Strategies, a Fort Worth political-consulting firm run by Stickland, who was simultaneously leading Defend Texas Liberty. Pale Horse, named after the line from the book of Revelation in which Death rides a pale horse, thrived on contracts from Defend Texas Liberty. In 2022 and 2023, Defend Texas Liberty paid Pale Horse $829,260 for consulting services.

Gray also runs a political action committee called the Texas Pastors Coalition, which was created in May 2022 and has so far been inactive, neither raising nor spending any money, according to state campaign-disclosure documents. But it shares a Fort Worth post office box with the Tarrant County Patriots PAC, which is run by Cary Cheshire, a former Pale Horse adviser who has worked for Dunn-supported groups on and off since 2014. This PAC has raised $80,000 in the last couple of years—all of it from Defend Texas Liberty. 

This is a typical pattern in Dunn’s orbit. A new organization emerges that attacks Republicans who are conservative but not sufficiently obedient to Dunn and Defend Texas Liberty. The groups, which spread misinformation and sow division, share the same pool of political operatives and funding. 

Among the lawmakers targeted by the Texas Family Project’s text messages was Stephanie Klick, a longtime nurse and Republican who has represented the northeast Fort Worth suburbs since 2013. In the 2022 election, a former military policeman and Republican Party operative named David Lowe ran against her, claiming she was too moderate. He described himself in campaign material as “an army veteran, a constitutional conservative, [and] follower of Christ.” When Lowe made it into a runoff against Klick, Defend Texas Liberty gave him $177,608—the majority of the $269,467 he raised during the head-to-head campaigning.

When I reached Lowe, who is running against Klick again, I asked him what he believes Dunn and Defend Texas Liberty want and why they are supporting him. “I think they’re strong Christians,” he replied. “They’re trying to lay the foundation to make Texas more conservative.” 

What that means, he said, is not yet clear—even to him. “The truth is, you don’t really know what they want until Texas is conservative,” he said. I replied that it was already quite conservative. He ticked off a list of additional legislative goals: increased militarization of the border, preventing abortions that are accomplished through medications received in the mail, punishing anyone who helps a transgender child receive gender-affirming care, and abolishing property taxes.

For Dunn, influencing government is a sacred mission. “When we go into governmental politics, we’re going into the darkest places,” he said in 2022. He was giving a speech in Orlando, to the Convention of States, a Houston-based organization (Dunn has been a board member since its founding) that calls for a constitutional convention to limit the power of the federal government. “And we have the opportunity to make disciples in the places that need it the most. It is a high and holy calling.”

To achieve this mission, Dunn has supported some candidates who are morally repugnant. In 2018 he got involved in an East Texas statehouse race. The incumbent was Dan Flynn, an Army veteran who had served as a brigadier general in the Texas State Guard. He first came to office in 2003, at which point he was considered quite conservative. Yet as the lower chamber moved further to the right, he was increasingly viewed as a centrist. Empower Texans donated nearly half the money raised by his 2018 primary challenger, a former youth pastor named Bryan Slaton.

What did Flynn do to raise the hackles of Dunn and his allies? Mark Owens, an assistant professor of political science at the Citadel who formerly taught at the University of Texas at Tyler, where he studied Texas politics, described Flynn as a principled, independent conservative who believed in limited government spending. Empower Texans’ attempt to create a cohesive, hard-right voting bloc didn’t sit well with Flynn. “He wasn’t on board,” Owens said. 

Flynn still won the 2018 primary and coasted to victory in the general election. Before those votes were cast, Dunn sent a letter on Empower Texans letterhead to Flynn’s constituents, urging them to “hold Flynn accountable” for his votes in the upcoming legislative session. “Why was I involved in Texas elections? What do I want,” Dunn wrote. He claimed he was fighting against corporate lobbyists, with nothing less than American democracy at stake. “If we lose this fight . . . representative government will die, and with it the American dream.” 

The letter was notable for its omissions. He described Empower Texans as a “non-profit service organization” but didn’t mention that he had given $2.63 million to the Empower Texans PAC the previous year. Dunn described himself as a champion of the little guy, helping voters fight back against politicians co-opted by Austin lobbyists. He never mentioned that he’s a whale in the campaign-finance ocean, or that he uses his political clout to promote his own worldview.

Two years later Dunn and Slaton took another shot at Flynn. Dunn personally gave $225,000 to Slaton—nearly two thirds of Slaton’s entire war chest. This time Slaton prevailed. After the election Dunn continued supporting him, giving his campaign another $50,000 in 2021. At the end of the session, Slaton received the highest score, 98 out of 100, on the Texans for Fiscal Responsibility’s index. He was an obedient anti-LGBTQ rabble-rouser, and Texas Monthly gave him the “Cockroach” award, reviving an old legislative term for a lawmaker who annoys members of both parties, makes a lot of noise, and accomplishes little. Despite these dubious accomplishments, Slaton was reelected in 2022, with more than half of his contributions coming from Dunn and Defend Texas Liberty. 

But his time as a lawmaker was cut short. The Texas Voice reported that last year Slaton was enlisted to speak at a networking meeting for “business leaders dedicated . . . to preserving our culture, protecting our children and promoting self-governance over tyranny.” According to the schedule, Slaton took the stage immediately after a talk by Dunn. 

Later that night, at 10 p.m., he invited two nineteen-year-old capitol aides and two of their friends to his Austin apartment. He mixed rum and Coke in a large Yeti thermos cup and drank until the early hours of the morning, by which time all but one of the aides had left. The one who remained was intoxicated, and according to a subsequent investigation, they engaged in sex. The next morning, she went to a drugstore to obtain Plan B pills to avoid getting pregnant. Several weeks later, in May, Slaton was expelled for “inappropriate workplace conduct,” the first member of the Texas Legislature to be removed in nearly a century. 

Texas Right to Life, an antiabortion group, withdrew its endorsement of Slaton, saying it held its endorsees to a high moral standard. Dunn, on the other hand, hasn’t made a public statement about Slaton’s behavior or his own role in electing him.

Why would Dunn ally himself with someone like Slaton? It’s a question that perplexed Bob Deuell a few years ago. He’s a family physician who served as a state senator from Greenville, northeast of Dallas, for more than a decade. A Republican, he was known as a staunch conservative with an independent streak. In 2014, after receiving a low score on a Dunn-backed scorecard, he drew a primary challenge from Bob Hall, a retired Air Force captain and recent transplant from Florida. During the campaign, Hall suggested that Satan controlled Deuell and bizarrely claimed that the incumbent intended to follow a United Nations imperative by adding bicycle lanes to Texas highways. Deuell shook off these outlandish statements but said he was deeply troubled by court documents in which Hall’s ex-wife claimed she was “physically, sexually and verbally abused for most of our marriage.” (Hall denied these allegations.)

Hall ran a relatively low-budget campaign, spending an average of $52 a day through the primary, mostly on signs, T-shirts, and door hangers. When he made it to a runoff with Deuell, Dunn-connected money rained down. Hall’s spending jumped to more than $2,100 a day, and he began using Facebook advertising and a direct-mail campaign generated by an out-of-state consultant. He attacked Deuell for voting like a “liberal Democrat” even though he had endorsements from the National Rifle Association and some right-to-life groups. “It was a bunch of lies,” Deuell told me. “His whole campaign was a bunch of lies.” 

In the middle of the election, Deuell decided to write Dunn a letter. He told me that its message was simple: “Mr. Dunn, I’m not sure why you’re wanting to have me out of office. Certainly, you don’t want to put somebody like this in office,” referring to Hall. Deuell never got a response.

Hall eked out a victory by three hundred votes and has served in the Texas Senate since 2015. In the past three sessions, he has scored highest among senators in the Texans for Fiscal Responsibility’s index. Deuell told me he learned one lesson from this experience: “As long as they get their puppet, they don’t care what the qualifications are because they know Bob Hall’s going to vote with them.”

For all his talk of Christian piety, Dunn’s tactics and beliefs have put him at odds with many fellow believers. “To see billionaire pastors, which should be an oxymoron, take over our state and turn it into an authoritarian theocracy is terrifying,” said James Talarico, a Democratic state House member representing North Austin and surrounding suburbs. Talarico is a former public school teacher and is studying to become a pastor at the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. “Without this ecosystem built by Tim Dunn, we wouldn’t see the extreme far-right policies coming out of Texas that we’ve seen in the last decade,” he said.

Amanda Tyler, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, lives in Dallas. She has observed the rise of Dunn’s dominion. He already wields control over the Texas Senate through his influence over Lieutenant Governor Patrick, and I asked her what Texas would look like if he managed to do the same in the Texas House. “I think it could create a second-class citizenship status for anyone who doesn’t agree with the elected leaders and their religious views,” she said. “And that looks like discriminatory laws and policies if they don’t align with a fundamentalist reading of the Bible. I also find that it would be profoundly undemocratic.”

She said Dunn is an ambassador of Christian nationalism, not Christianity. “I believe the central message of Christianity is the gospel of love,” she told me. “And Christian nationalism is a false idol of power.”

Summer Wise has also watched Dunn’s rise with dismay. She comes from an old Texas family and is distantly related to Angelina Eberly, a bronze likeness of whom presides over Congress Avenue, in downtown Austin. One night in 1842, Eberly famously took it upon herself to ready the town cannon and fire the six-pounder to prevent the records of the nascent Republic of Texas from being taken from the capital. Wise has engaged in a different sort of public service. She sat on the State Republican Executive Committee from 2018 to 2020 and has appeared as a delegate at seven state conventions. She lost her post in 2020 as part of a takeover of the party by Dunn’s allies. She told me she is deeply uncomfortable with the toxicity in some factions of today’s Texas Republican Party.

Many of her friends and former allies have given up their activism or left public office, creating what she told me was an exodus of talent and passion. It’s hard to fight against people who command vast resources and who believe their eternal salvation depends on the outcome, she said. She fears that Texas is moving away from a representative republic. In its place is a system driven “by ideology and the ideologies of a few. That is not how government is intended to function.”

We spoke several times over a few months. In one of her final emails to me, she lamented the state of the state but vowed, like her ancestor, not to surrender. “I cannot think of a time when we have seen the very integrity of our political system so tested,” she wrote. “Dunn has a misguided belief that he is fighting for souls, but I’m fighting for the soul of Texas.

[reviewitworks]

Patriot Golden Card Review – Trump Gold Card it's worth it? GOLDEN PLATE...

Have you ever wondered how to honor the legacy of former President Donald Trump in your home or office? Maybe you’re looking for a way to show your continued support to one of the most influential leaders in American history. If that’s what you’re looking for, then you’ve come to the right place. The Patriot Golden Card is a souvenir, gold-plated collectible item of excellent quality that will stand the test of time. It was created for people who love and respect President Donald Trump's legacies and accomplishments, to be able to show their gratitude, love and respect, as well as help boost and support President Donald Trump's re-election bid in 2024 It is something you can buy as a gift for family and friends, or to add to your collection and should not be taken as an investment opportunity. It is an opportunity to show patriotism to a gallant politician. The Patriot Golden Card is an opportunity for you to own a beautiful piece of history. It is a commemorative piece that will always remember your support for President Donald Trump. It is a unique piece of memorabilia, created not only for collectors, but for all Americans. Patriot Golden Card Review – Trump Gold Card it's worth it? GOLDEN PLATED TRUMP 2024 CARD REVIEW According to its creators, Patriot Golden Card represents several achievements acquired by Trump during his term in office. The Patriot Golden Card is a memento that you can pass on to your generation to remember the 45th president of the United States. After several decades, the Golden Card will serve as historical memorabilia, and younger children will love hearing patriotic stories of the former US president. So if you want to purchase the Patriot Golden Card to gift to someone or to add to your collection, or even want to know more information, I'll leave the link to the official website below in the description of this video. And to make you feel safe and confident in purchasing the Golden Trump Card, the manufacturer offers you a 60-day warranty in case you don't like the product for any reason.

[bllsbailey]

Here's When Trump Knew NYC Eric Adams Would Get Indicted

For months, Donald Trump has done something Kamala Harris has refused to do: hold a press conference. The vice president is being interviewed, but it’s vapid stuff, almost all done with uber-friendly outlets like MSNBC and CNN. Trump spoke to the press for nearly an hour at Trump Tower, where he was asked about the indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Trump said he didn’t know the intricacies of the case but said that he felt the mayor would be indicted after he warned that the endless stream of migrants would destroy New York City. 

“I watched about a year ago when he talked about how the illegal migrants are hurting our city,” said the former president. “And I said, 'You know what, he'll be indicted within a year.' And I was exactly right,” added Trump. 

He then went on to criticize the Democrats for politicizing the justice system to come after their enemies. 

Here’s what Adams said about the illegal alien invasion in September of 2023. 

Then again, Adams said this and later gave these people $53 million in pre-paid credit cards. 

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 26, 2024

Adams was slapped with a five-count indictment yesterday that alleged the mayor took bribes, engaged in fraudulent activities, and took illegal campaign donations (via NYT): 

The indictment, which was unsealed on Thursday morning after a search of the mayor’s official residence, Gracie Mansion, followed an investigation that started in 2021. Prosecutors said the scheme began when he was a top elected official in Brooklyn and continued after he became mayor.  The judge in the case, Dale E. Ho, ordered Mr. Adams to appear on Friday at noon for an arraignment before a federal magistrate judge, but a lawyer for Mr. Adams asked the judge to move the hearing to early next week. When the arraignment takes place, Mr. Adams will be formally informed of his rights and will enter a plea, presumably of not guilty.  The investigation focused on whether Mr. Adams, 64, had conspired with the Turkish government to receive illegal foreign campaign contributions in exchange for acting on its behalf.  Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said that Mr. Adams had been “showered” with gifts that he knew were illegal.  “This was a multiyear scheme to buy favor with a single New York City politician on the rise: Eric Adams,” Mr. Williams said at a news conference. “Year after year, he kept the public in the dark.”  Mr. Williams discussed the indictment moments after Mr. Adams finished a raucous news conference at Gracie Mansion surrounded by supporters. Mr. Adams cast himself as a victim and urged New Yorkers to be patient.  He said he would not resign despite numerous calls from elected officials — and hecklers who constantly interrupted and called him a disgrace. “I ask New Yorkers to wait to hear our defense,” said Mr. Adams, a Democrat.  If Mr. Adams is convicted of all five counts in the indictment, the maximum penalty under law would be 45 years in prison.

Trending on Townhall Videos

[dankusner]

Goodbye to the Most Powerful Man in Texas Government You’ve Never Heard Of

You can be forgiven if you’ve never heard of the most powerful unelected man in Texas politics.

Steve McCraw, the longtime director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, is not exactly a household name.

And even his legions of fans and critics at the Capitol routinely botch his name, calling him Steve McGraw.

Yet McCraw, who abruptly announced last week that he would retire by the end of the year, has changed Texas government and politics far more than most of the elected officials he theoretically answers to.

He is the J. Edgar Hoover of Texas—a lawman-politician whose power grew alongside his longevity and usefulness to the Republican Party.

And like Hoover, he seems preternaturally gifted at escaping accountability.

Over time, he became too big to fail.

In 2004, Governor Rick Perry plucked McCraw from the FBI to serve as state homeland security director.

In that role, McCraw alarmed civil libertarians and some lawmakers by overseeing the construction of the Texas Data Exchange (TDEx), a massive intelligence database controlled by the governor’s office.

McCraw also helped Perry launch the state’s giant experiment of taking on the heretofore federal responsibility of policing the border.

Perry appointed him to lead DPS in 2009.

McCraw brought with him his post-9/11-era focus on intelligence gathering and obsession with “spillover violence” from Mexico.

Law enforcement traditionalists watched McCraw’s transformation of DPS with some alarm.

Would the agency still be able to effectively perform its core crime-fighting functions—highway enforcement and major state criminal investigations—if its leader was more attuned to Al Qaeda and Los Zetas?

When McCraw took the lead at the agency, he inherited one of the most high-profile criminal cases in modern Texas history—the Governor’s Mansion arson.

In 2008, someone threw a Molotov cocktail into the stately mansion while Perry and his wife, Anita, were in Europe.

Three years later, DPS released tantalizing details about persons of interest—with links to anarchists—the agency was looking into.

“We don’t believe in coincidences,” McCraw told reporters at the time.

For a while, it looked as if McCraw would solve the crime of the decade, proving to his critics that DPS could still solve major criminal cases the old-fashioned way.

But the case fizzled and remains unsolved sixteen years later.

If lawmakers were concerned that DPS had missed a step in solving a major crime, they didn’t show it.

McCraw’s bosses—Perry and the Legislature—had bigger concerns than arson.

By the time Perry ran for his third term, in 2010, border security had emerged as the sine qua non of Republican politics.

(Sine qua non is Latin for “ain’t nuthin’ better.”)

Perry developed a fetish for militarizing the border—and McCraw was happy to oblige, overseeing the build-out of the nation’s first full-blown state border-security apparatus.

Suddenly, DPS gunboats equipped with mounted .30-caliber guns were roaring up and down the Rio Grande while an army of state troopers flooded Texas border communities, especially in the Rio Grande Valley.

“We’re using tactics and equipment that you will see in war zones,” a DPS captain told a documentary film crew in early 2012.

Six months later, a DPS sniper, operating from a helicopter, opened fire on a speeding F-150 near the border town of La Joya.

He assumed, wrongly, that the truck was carrying drugs.

Six Guatemalan migrants were hiding in the bed under a tarp.

The sniper shot three of them, killing two.

McCraw called the killing “very tragic” but insisted that the “recklessly speeding” truck posed a threat to an elementary school several miles away.

Why was DPS the only domestic law enforcement agency in the country to allow cops to shoot at moving vehicles from helicopters?

What responsibility did the DPS director bear for the consequences of waging a deadly war in Texas communities?

GOP lawmakers seemed curiously uninterested in such questions.

“There’s no need for a hearing,” said state representative Sid Miller, who was the chair of the Texas House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety.

(Miller is now the state agriculture commissioner.)

Not long after Greg Abbott became governor, in 2015, he doubled down on border militarization.

And then tripled and quadrupled.

Today the Texas-Mexico border is arguably the most important stage in the world for American politicians—the photo op that has launched and sustained a thousand Republican careers.

If the border was theater, the DPS director was the prop guy, stage manager, and supporting actor all in one.

In front of TV cameras and at hearings at the Capitol, McCraw often appears in uniform—Texas tan, cowboy hat—and delivers a blizzard of homeland security–inflected cop talk about “force multipliers” and the “vertical stack” of “detection coverage” offered by drones, cameras, and “tactical” boats.

For a time, during Abbott’s first term, lawmakers and the press took a critical look at what the data said about the success rate of the state’s border operations.

The results were dismal.

What they found was that DPS was trying to take credit for drug seizures made by other agencies and classifying routine police work hundreds of miles from the border as part of its border efforts.

DPS troopers seemed to spend a lot of their time writing tickets to RGV motorists in overwhelmingly Hispanic counties while neglecting traffic enforcement in other parts of the state.

In a report to the Legislature in 2015, McCraw offered a utopian vision of success:

“[The border] will be secure when all smuggling events between the ports of entry are detected and interdicted.”

That could be achieved, the report said, with “the permanent assignment of a sufficient number” of troopers and Texas Rangers, along with a network of security cameras and surveillance aircraft.

On the face of it, this is a wild claim.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with Texas’s 1,254-mile border with Mexico knows that catching every smuggler is the stuff of fantasy.

But the accountability moment in the Legislature quickly passed.

The politics of cracking down on a supposed border “invasion”—Abbott’s preferred term—were too good to let facts get in the way.

Lawmakers showered the DPS director with more money, more responsibilities.

In 2023, the Legislature gave DPS $1.2 billion for border operations, a 28 percent increase.

Though apprehensions of unauthorized migrants have plummeted across the Southwestern border in recent months, there is no evidence that Texas’s efforts are responsible.

A measure of McCraw’s importance is the fallout—or lack thereof—from his agency’s handling of the Uvalde shooting.

Lest we forget, close to 400 law enforcement agents, including 91 DPS officers, took more than an hour to confront the gunman responsible for the deaths of 19 fourth graders and 2 teachers.

While children pleaded with 911 for help, heavily armed cops stood around in the hallways.

Afterward, various agencies and officers would blame one another.

But in the moment, parents knew exactly what to do.

Several tried to rush into the school but were physically blocked by police officers.

One mother was arrested.

Subsequent investigations found that the police prioritized their own safety over saving lives.

In the aftermath of the shooting, high-ranking DPS personnel provided misleading information about the police response, with McCraw initially telling reporters at a press conference the next day that officers did immediately “engage” the shooter.

This was, we would later learn, totally false.

Abbott mused that “it could have been worse” without the “amazing courage” of the police.

Abbott has never said who gave him the misinformation.

Soon after the shooting, the governor sternly admonished DPS and the Texas Rangers—the iconic agents are a unit of DPS—to get to the bottom of what went wrong.

This was a bit like asking the livestock guardian dog to investigate how the fox got into the henhouse.

What were the chances that McCraw was going to incriminate his own agency and, by extension, himself and the governor?

The grieving Uvalde parents calling for his resignation might have earned the attention of the press, but he had the ear of the governor.

For the next two years, DPS engaged in a tireless effort to point the finger at Pete Arredondo, the Uvalde CISD police chief, while casting a veil of secrecy over a mountain of information that could shed full light on the shooting.

To this day, a coalition of media outlets is engaged in litigation to pry records loose from DPS, though at this point it’s not clear what else there is to learn about the ways the authorities failed those children and teachers.

In 2022, McCraw called the law enforcement response an “abject failure” and vowed to resign if DPS had “any culpability.”

Subsequent investigations found plenty of culpability.

A U.S. Department of Justice report blamed one Texas Ranger for not challenging Arredondo on the lack of urgency.

The report also faulted DPS South Texas director Victor Escalon for failing to establish a perimeter outside the classrooms to preserve the integrity of the crime scene and for compromising the integrity of the crime scene by wandering around without purpose.

As for the investigation into the 91 DPS officers?

To date, McCraw has done very little to hold his employees accountable.

One trooper, Sergeant Juan Maldonado, was served with termination papers but quit before his firing was finalized.

McCraw had initially tried to fire another Ranger, Christopher Ryan Kindell, but then, in early August, McCraw quietly reinstated him.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, McCraw said the Uvalde County DA had requested the reinstatement after a grand jury declined to charge any DPS officers with crimes connected to the shooting.

In reinstating Kindell, McCraw also avoided a public appeal hearing—and further scrutiny—into the roles played by high-ranking DPS officials.

McCraw, of course, did not resign.

Instead, he got a raise.

Last year his overseers at the Texas Public Safety Commission—all Abbott appointees—gave him a roughly $45,500 boost to his salary, bringing it to more than $345,000.

On the day of his retirement announcement, August 23, McCraw’s press team made available a cache of photos to commemorate his service.

There’s a shot of McCraw riding in a DPS gunboat with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick—a classic photo op.

One of him serving food to troopers and guardsmen deployed to the border.

But there’s one that seems to best capture the moment.

Abbott is in the foreground of the photo, but he’s blurry.

McCraw, looking contemplative in his uniform and cowboy hat, is the focus of attention.

The same day those photos were released, Abbott kept the spotlight on his appointee.

Steve McCraw, he said, is “a leader, visionary, and the quintessential lawman that Texas is so famous for—big, white cowboy hat and all.”

Brett Cross, the father of a boy who died at Robb Elementary, had a different take.

“Good riddance,” he wrote on X. “You’re an embarrassment to this state. You’re an embarrassment to this country.”