By: Rita Cook
AUSTIN – In keeping with my D.C. Executive Watch column this week, I am narrowing down the two candidates running for Texas’ U.S. Senate race; Ken Paxton and James Talarico.
To both of their credit, reportedly both Talarico and Paxton have received $0 in direct funding or super PAC expenditures from the American Israel Public Affairs Committees better known as AIPAC.
Allegedly, AIPAC and its primary super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), have deliberately remained unbacked and uninvolved in this specific statewide race.
One plus in both of their favors, but let’s look at funding overall because the truth is when you vote a candidate in you are actually voting in who owns that politician in many cases.
Track AIPAC reported Talarico has a strict campaign pledge refusing all corporate PAC money, including AIPAC. While he has publicly called out politicians who accept lobby money, his policy position is more nuanced than total opposition; he supports funding “defensive weapons” for Israel but has criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and accused the Israeli government of war crimes.
Paxton on the other hand holds a vocally pro-Israel stance, but AIPAC chose not to back his campaign due to his “America First” isolationist foreign policy platform, which often clashes with traditional bipartisan foreign defense aid spending models.
Houston Public Meeting reported Talarico’s campaign has raised over $72 million, mainly due to small-dollar grassroots donations. His campaign also got a boost, however, by progressive and Democratic megadonors via groups like Lone Star Rising PAC and America Votes.
The Texas Tribute reported Paxton has been facing cash-on-hand deficit in the race and he is relying heavily on outside Republican groups. He received $54 million from the Senate Leadership Fund to run state ads and there was also another $10 million in funds by MAGA Inc.
Other than the financials, Paxton and Talarico also have very different key campaign messages.
Paxton is using a frame based on an ideological defense of Texas against a “radical” progressive agenda. He has been leaning on law enforcement endorsements, culture-war issues, and a hardline stance on illegal immigration and national border defense.
And while Paxton builds his campaign on an “America First,” law-enforcement-backed platform, Talarico has been leaning into a progressive, populist “People vs. Ken Paxton” strategy.
Regarding economics and affordability Talarico says he is looking for working-class relief. He advocates for repealing federal tariffs and federal gas/diesel taxes to drop fuel costs by 18 cents per gallon instantly. He has also targeted structural healthcare costs.
Paxton’s plan has been focusing on tax-incentive deductions. He proposes tax deductions for out-of-pocket medical premiums, tax deductions for first-time homebuyers or Texans relocating to new primary residences and making the Trump tax cuts permanent.
Talarico has also been leaning into his faith and background as a former public-school teacher.
He has also targeted corporate corruption while Paxton’ language of love is more of the “America First” toughness. Whether you choose grassroots backing or national party muscle, the most important thing voters must remember this November is the importance of weighing the contrasting visions and the financial backing of each candidate while evaluating the best choice.
Rita Cook is a world traveler and writer/editor who specializes in writing on travel, auto, crime and politics. A correspondent for Texas Metro News, she has published 11 books and has also produced low-budget films.
