Staff Reports
The big news this week is a conservative outlet’s undercover video that appears to show a Texas Majority PAC operative admitting the group pays people $25 to attend a one‑hour Zoom training. The operative, identified in coverage as Sky McAdams, calls the program “a roundabout way of paying people for their votes.” That clip — and a July PAC filing that lists a large payment to a vendor named Relentless for a “relational organizing program” — deserve real answers, fast.
What the undercover video actually shows
The short clip published by Townhall captures a man saying, in plain language, that people get $25 for a one‑hour Zoom and that the setup is “like a roundabout way of paying people for their votes.” Conservative outlets quickly amplified the video. The PAC filing cited in reports shows a six‑figure payment to a vendor described as providing relational organizing. Taken together, the undercover video and the Texas Majority PAC filing make this more than gossip — it’s a concrete allegation that a paid relational organizing program was funded by a major Democratic PAC.
Why this smells like vote‑buying
The legal line that can’t be blurred
Federal and many state laws ban paying people to vote or to register to vote. That’s not partisan — it’s common sense law to keep elections honest. “Paid relational organizing” can be legal if it truly pays for time and training, not for a ballot cast for a specific candidate. But when an operative calls it “a roundabout way of paying people for their votes,” that’s no longer a technical debate — it’s a red flag. The Justice Department’s guidance on vote‑buying makes clear the difference matters, and prosecutors can and do look into programs that blur it.
The PAC filing and the vendor behind the program
Texas Majority PAC’s filings show a large payment to a vendor named Relentless for what the PAC called a relational organizing program. Relentless openly markets “paid relational” programs and software that pay community mobilizers to persuade their own networks. That model was used in other recent campaigns, so the technique itself isn’t brand new — but funding, contract terms, and payment rules determine whether this crosses the legal line from organizing to illegal inducement.
What should happen next — and who needs to speak up
We need the raw, unedited video and the contracts. Texas Majority PAC, Relentless, and U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico should release on‑the‑record statements now, not later. Attorney General Ken Paxton and state prosecutors should review the filings and footage and decide if there’s cause for an investigation. Reporters should demand the vendor contract showing whether payments were conditioned on persuasion activity only or tied — explicitly or implicitly — to voting behavior. If democracy is the product, it shouldn’t be for sale in $25 increments.
Voters deserve clear answers. If a political operation is skirting the line between legitimate organizing and illegal vote‑buying, conservatives and independents should both be alarmed. This isn’t about scoring cheap political points — it’s about enforcing laws that protect the integrity of every ballot. The only fair outcome is transparency, legal scrutiny, and, if warranted, prosecution that doesn’t depend on which party benefits.
