Pop star-turned-Dem candidate’s defense of graphic murder video resurfaces in key House race
Democratic congressional candidate and Tejano singer Bobby Pulido is facing renewed scrutiny over comments he made in 2016 defending another artist’s graphic music video depicting sexual violence and murder. The issue has resurfaced in Texas’s competitive 15th Congressional District race, where Pulido is challenging Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz, and has become part of a broader dispute over each candidate’s record.
Pulido said at the time that such content was a matter for the artist and production team, while adding that he did not always agree with portrayals of women. The article also cites previous controversies involving Pulido, including explicit links posted on his X account, a post involving Donald Trump’s Hollywood Walk of Fame star, and a 2018 school benefit concert attended by a registered sex offender; Pulido has denied wrongdoing or prior knowledge. De La Cruz won the district in 2024 with 57.1% of the vote to Democrat Michelle Vallejo’s 42.9%, while Pulido’s campaign called the renewed criticism a political distraction and raised unproven allegations involving De La Cruz.
- Pulido’s 2016 comments on a violent music video have resurfaced.
- The controversy features in Texas’s closely watched 15th District race.
- Both campaigns have sought to shift attention towards their opponent.
New here? Start with this
Bobby Pulido is a Tejano music singer who is seeking election to the US House of Representatives as a Democrat. He is running in Texas’s 15th Congressional District, a seat in south Texas currently held by Republican Monica De La Cruz.
The race is drawing attention because old comments by Pulido about a graphic music video have been raised again by his critics. His response at the time was that creative decisions rested with the artist and production team, though he said he did not always agree with depictions of women.
De La Cruz was re-elected in 2024 with 57.1% of the vote, defeating Democrat Michelle Vallejo. Both campaigns are also pointing to past allegations and controversies involving the other candidate, making their records a central part of the contest.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics can reasonably argue that a candidate for public office should be held accountable for past judgements, particularly where the material at issue depicts sexual violence against women. They may see Pulido’s response as too deferential to artistic choice and insufficiently attentive to the social harm such imagery can cause. Their concern rests on the expectation that elected representatives demonstrate sound judgement, empathy and clear moral boundaries.
The case against
Supporters can reasonably argue that a comment about artistic responsibility a decade ago should not be treated as an endorsement of the violence shown, especially when Pulido also expressed reservations about depictions of women. They may regard the renewed focus on old entertainment-industry controversies as a campaign tactic that distracts from current policy choices and each candidate’s record in office or proposed priorities. Their case rests on artistic freedom, context and the principle that voters should assess candidates primarily on their present conduct and public agenda.