Trump-linked MAGA Inc pours $10M into Ken Paxton’s Texas Senate race against James Talarico

← Back to the feed

Trump-linked MAGA Inc pours $10M into Ken Paxton’s Texas Senate race against James Talarico

Developing story first seen 5 hours ago

Fox News · 5 hours ago

MAGA Inc, the pro-Trump super PAC, has confirmed its first major midterm spending commitment: $10 million on digital and television adverts backing Republican Ken Paxton in Texas's tightly fought Senate race against Democrat state Representative James Talarico, according to a new Federal Election Commission filing. The move follows weeks of speculation over whether the group would intervene, and underscores Donald Trump's continued backing of Paxton, whose primary victory over incumbent Senator John Cornyn earlier this year was already boosted by the president's endorsement. Polls have consistently shown the two candidates neck and neck, making the national money a significant escalation in one of the cycle's most closely watched races.

The adverts brand Talarico "High Tax Talarico" and attack his record on taxes and rural hospitals, while promoting Paxton's proposals including doubling the child tax credit, medical expense tax breaks and a $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers. Talarico's campaign dismissed the spending as coming from "billionaire-backed dark money groups" and pointed to its own fundraising strength, having raised $72 million mostly from small donors compared with Paxton's $16.8 million. Trump has said MAGA Inc, which holds roughly $400 million, is "my money" and that he is prepared to "spend whatever amount of money necessary" to help Republican candidates, while Talarico has hit back at Republican donors gathering at a Dallas convention this week.

  • MAGA Inc commits first $10m midterm ad buy for Paxton in Texas
  • Ads attack Talarico on taxes; Paxton pushes tax-relief plans
  • Talarico's campaign has out-raised Paxton, $72m to $16.8m

New here? Start with this

Political money keeps flowing into a Texas Senate contest that's shaping up as one of the most closely watched races of the midterms. Ken Paxton, the state's Republican attorney general, is standing for the Senate seat and faces Democrat James Talarico, a state representative, after Paxton beat sitting Republican Senator John Cornyn in the primary earlier this year with Donald Trump's backing.

MAGA Inc is a "super PAC," a type of American political fundraising group that can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing candidates, so long as it doesn't coordinate directly with their campaigns. It is closely aligned with Trump, who has said the group holds several hundred million dollars, and its involvement here reflects the president's continued interest in this race after his endorsement helped Paxton in the primary.

The contest matters because control of the Senate, and the balance of power in Washington, depends on individual races like this one, and Texas is not usually considered competitive for Democrats. Both campaigns have raised large sums from different sources, and outside groups like MAGA Inc add another layer of spending on top of what the candidates themselves bring in, ahead of the vote in November.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of this kind of spending argue that super PACs are a lawful and long-established way for citizens who share political values to pool resources and make their voice heard in a competitive race. They point out that Talarico's campaign has already raised far more than Paxton's, so outside investment simply helps level the playing field and ensures voters hear about Paxton's proposals, such as expanding the child tax credit and aiding first-time homebuyers. From this perspective, robust spending on both sides is a feature of vigorous democratic debate, not a distortion of it, and disclosure rules mean voters can still judge the source and motive behind the adverts.

The case against

Critics counter that a single super PAC being able to inject $10 million, drawn from a roughly $400 million war chest, into one Senate race illustrates how concentrated wealth can overwhelm the efforts of a campaign built on ordinary donors, undermining the idea that elections should be decided by broad public support rather than a handful of large backers. They argue that such spending, especially when funding sources or influences behind the PAC are not fully transparent to the average voter, risks making elected officials more attentive to major donors than to constituents. For them, the scale of this intervention in a closely fought race raises legitimate concerns about fairness and accountability in the electoral process, regardless of which party benefits.

More coverage

Elections Government Politics World

Read the full article at the source →