The Department of Justice is investigating a Texas Democratic group after a former organizer detailed on video a loophole the group uses to pay people to vote. The admission came in hidden-camera footage from Townhall, where Sky MacAdams, a since-fired organizing manager for Texas Majority PAC, discussed the arrangement.
Federal law bars payments in exchange for voting or not voting for certain candidates, with violators facing up to two years in prison. MacAdams said the arrangement was a “gray” area and that the group pays people $25 to attend a one-hour Zoom class about voting. He added that if he were a Republican, he would be “pissed” and would call it “shady as f–k.”
MacAdams’s admission
MacAdams explained the setup during the Townhall interview. He said you cannot pay someone to vote for a candidate directly, but you can offer money for attending a class about voting.
“You can’t pay someone to vote for someone,” he said. “You can’t be like, ‘Here’s $25, go vote for me.’ You can say, ‘Attend a one-hour class and you can receive $25.'”
He framed the arrangement as a workaround. “If I was a Republican, I would be pissed,” he said. “I would be like, that’s shady as f–k.”
The video has drawn attention to the practice. The question now is whether the DOJ will treat it as a crime.
The PAC’s response
Eddie Vale, a spokesman for Texas Majority PAC, told Fox News that the description was incorrect and insisted everything was aboveboard. He defended the program as legitimate organizing work.
“We hire Texans to join events where they are taught how to organize their friends and family,” Vale said. “They encourage their friends and family to turn out and vote and send them regular reminders. They are compensated for their organizing work, just like any other job.”
Vale also pushed back on the characterization of the program as a vote-buying scheme. “Texas Majority PAC runs a relational organizing program, which for years has been a standard part of every campaign’s playbook,” he said. “Participants in the program are being paid for grassroots organizing work. The way it was described by one rogue employee is factually incorrect, not how we operate, and they were immediately fired.”
The PAC’s version of events is that the program trains volunteers to recruit others to vote, and that the payment is for the organizing work itself, not for casting a ballot. The DOJ’s investigation will determine whether that distinction holds up under federal law.
The money behind the program
Texas Majority PAC paid $500,000 to a political consulting firm, Relentless, for its Relational Organizing Program in May of this year, per a state campaign finance report. The disclosure shows that the PAC spent real money on the program.
| Detail | Amount |
|---|---|
| PAC payment to Relentless | $500,000 |
| Payment to attendees | $25 |
Whether that spending counts as illegal voter buying is the question the DOJ is now asking.
Fallon calls for action
Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) has joined the pressure on the PAC. He called on Attorney General Todd Blanche to investigate Texas Majority PAC.
Fallon wrote: “Texas Majority PAC, through its documented partnership with Relentless, has openly admitted to defying the law and purchasing votes in the US Senate race. If this is true, this criminal behavior has no place in America and our elections. The government has a responsibility to investigate and hold accountable those that seek to circumvent free and fair elections through bribery of voters.”
Fallon’s letter puts the PAC on notice. He frames the admission as evidence of a deliberate effort to skirt election law, and he wants the attorney general to act.
What the law says
Federal law bars payments in exchange for voting or not voting for certain candidates. Violators face up to two years in prison.
The key question is whether the PAC’s payment for attendance counts as payment for voting. MacAdams argued that the payment is for the class, not the vote itself. The DOJ will have to decide whether that distinction holds up.
The law is clear on its face. Paying someone to vote is illegal. Offering money for attending a class about voting is not explicitly barred. The PAC’s position is that the payment is for the organizing work, not the vote.
The stakes for the PAC
The investigation could force the PAC to change its practices or to defend them in court. The disclosure of the payment to Relentless is public, which adds context to the DOJ’s review.
The PAC has already fired MacAdams. His admission came in a setting where he was not expecting to be recorded.
Where this goes next
The DOJ’s investigation is ongoing. Neither Texas Majority PAC nor the DOJ responded to requests for comment.
The investigation could lead to charges. It could also lead to nothing. The outcome depends on how the DOJ interprets the law.
The PAC has put its money where its mouth is. It paid $500,000 for the program, and it has disclosed that payment. Whether that disclosure is enough to protect it from prosecution remains to be seen.
The case pits the DOJ’s authority against a campaign finance disclosure showing the group paid half a million dollars for its organizing program. The PAC has argued that the payment is for organizing work, not for voting. The DOJ will have to decide whether that distinction holds up under federal law.
The investigation is ongoing, and the outcome is not yet known.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs none of the sides here and backs the rule against paying people to vote instead, which is federal law. The PAC’s defense — that it pays for organizing work, not for voting — is the central claim in this story, and the DOJ will decide whether that line holds up. The paper does not take the PAC’s word for it.
What matters is the law itself. Federal law bars payments in exchange for voting or not voting for certain candidates, and violators face up to two years in prison. The PAC’s payment of $25 to attendees for a one-hour Zoom class about voting sits squarely in that gray area, and the DOJ’s investigation is testing whether the PAC’s workaround crosses the line.
The paper’s north star — maximizing individual freedom, supporting small business, and avoiding concentrations of power — offers no comfort here. A PAC that pays people to vote for a candidate is a concentration of power over the most fundamental act of democracy, and it must be tested against the law rather than defended in terms of organizing work.
See the video the story is built around at the New York Post.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.