La Marque City Councilman Joseph Lowry is no stranger to courtroom battles, often finding himself on either side of a lawsuit. His latest legal maneuver stems from a recent truck accident in which he claims he was “T-boned” in his truck. Given Lowry’s habit of broadcasting Facebook Live videos while behind the wheel, questions remain as to whether a forensic audit of his phone might play a role in the investigation. Nevertheless, he has officially filed a petition, CV-0095926, seeking $1 million in damages against the driver.
You can read the original petition here. His suit is demanding $1 Million for the following:
Compensatory damages against Defendant;
Actual damages
Past and future medical expenses;
Past and future lost wages;
Past and future loss of household services;
Consequential damages;
Pain and suffering;
Exemplary damages;
Past and future mental anguish;
Past and future impairment;
Past and future disfigurement;
Interest on damages (pre and post-judgment) in accordance with the law
Costs of Court;
Expert witness fees;
Costs of copies of depositions; and
Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Greg Abbott’s entire career has been built in public service, sucking on the tit of the government—first as a Supreme Court Justice, then as Attorney General, and now as Governor. Over the course of his gubernatorial runs, he has raised a staggering $336 million.
A significant chunk of that money—$53 million—comes from just 10 billionaire donors who wrote single checks of $1 million or more. That includes $8.5 million originating from out-of-state donors in California and Nevada. Topping the donor list is Javaid Anwar of Midland Energy, whose contributions to only Abbott exceed $15 million. He deserves a dedicated post on his entire contributions.
Notably, these numbers leave out powerful groups whose donations only cross the million-dollar mark when added together. For instance, Texans for Lawsuit Reform gave Abbott $1.5 million over this period, but kept each individual check below $1 million. See The Trillionaire, Billionaires, and Millionaires Running the Texas GOP
Uncovering this data isn’t easy. The Texas Ethics Commission report for “Texans for Greg Abbott” contains over 73,000 pages and more than 1 million raw entries. Because the dataset is too massive to download in full, public access is limited to basic fields: contribution counts, report numbers, and dollar amounts.
Fueled by millionaires and billionaires, Abbott’s campaign machine relies on major wealthy donors to stay in power. Here are the 10 billionaire mega-donors who gave at least one $1 million donation:
Over his twelve-year tenure as Governor, Greg Abbott has consistently prioritized corporate recruitment, encouraging businesses to relocate to Texas. While these economic policies attracted major corporations, critics argue they have contributed to increased housing costs, traffic congestion, and a higher cost of living. Furthermore, the expansion of over 300 data centers—supported by massive tax incentives—has raised significant concerns regarding water usage and power grid stability.
As public concern over the environmental and infrastructural impacts of data centers grows, Governor Abbott has recently called for a moratorium and temporary guardrails on new construction. However, skepticism remains as to whether these measures reflect a genuine shift in policy or a temporary political response. Voters seeking long-term infrastructure stability and resource protection may question whether current leadership will maintain strict oversight following the election.
Abbott encouraged corporations to build data centers in Texas. He is responsible for their encroachment on our communities and now he is claiming he will put up guardrails for our protection. Abbott is 12 years too late. He had the opportunity to take action before he approved the data centers. He caused the problem he is trying to now fixed.
Just like the cost of auto, home, and health insurance, and education, and the electric grid, and property taxes. Don’t be an idiot. Abbott is the problem. He doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s time to roll him out of office.
During the debate on Flock camera usage, Harris County Judge candidates Letitia Plummer and Orlando Sanchez took center stage—and Sanchez completely flocked it up. (Hope you’re enjoying the flocking puns as much as I am!) According to the Houston Chronicle Orlando said:
Sanchez cast Plummer’s Flock proposal as another example of the Democratic nominee making hasty conclusions before gathering the facts. He said in a Friday statement he would engage with public safety officials and community members on the issue before making any promises he may later have to walk back.
Here is what Plummer said which seems like common sense ideas that should have been put in place when the Flockers were put in place.
Plummer said, if elected, she would mandate the county publish a clear policy on when officers can use the technology, publish annual audits, introduce strict data retention limits and prohibit data sharing with any agencies outside of Harris County unless it’s in support of a specific criminal investigation.
Had Orlando played this strategically, he would have aligned with Plummer while insisting, “We must establish strict policies to ensure these cameras are never used for citizen surveillance or tracking.” Instead, he dismissed guardrails as premature. Meanwhile, it is increasingly evident that these systems are being used for unconstitutional tracking. Cities across the country are cutting ties with Flock, and communities like League City are putting the issue directly to voters. The time to demand sweeping reform is now but Sanchez Flocked up this easy question.
The U.S. healthcare system undoubtedly needs reform, but Medicare for All (M4A) is likely the wrong solution—and under its current champions, it’s politically dead on arrival.
Next time a politician campaigns on Medicare for All, ask them to explain it. Most will struggle. With Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal sponsoring the legislation, it stands virtually zero chance of becoming law. Neither lawmaker has a track record of passing major legislation, let alone completely rewriting American health policy. They excel at mobilizing movement rhetoric, but leave the painstaking work of negotiation and politicking to others. If advocates actually want M4A to pass, they need more pragmatic sponsors.
To evaluate the policy objectively, we must first dispel three major misconceptions:
Medicare for All is NOT traditional Medicare: Standard Medicare only covers 80% of costs, leaving patients responsible for the remaining 20% unless they buy supplemental private insurance. It also excludes dental, vision, hearing long-term care, and prescription drugs (unless purchased separately). Traditional Medicare would bankrupt most families during a health crisis—a stark contrast to M4A’s comprehensive scope.
Medicare for All is NOT healthcare: It is a government-run health insurance system designed to eliminate private insurers for core services. Private plans would be banned from offering any coverage that overlaps with M4A. To be accurate, Sanders and his allies should rename it what it actually is: Medical Insurance for All (MIFA).
Medical Insurance for All is NOT free: While traditional Medicare is funded through a 2.9% payroll tax split between employees and employers, MIFA would require vastly higher funding. Draft proposals rely on heavy payroll taxes—ranging from 4% on workers and 7.5% on employers up to 30% overall depending on income tiers.
Ultimately, MIFA is an all-inclusive coverage model that expands far beyond traditional Medicare to cover vision, dental, and long-term care. Here are the main highlights of how MIFA would function:
Will cover all Americans.
Will cover all medical expenses for core services
Will replace private insurance with few exceptions
Includes dental, vision, and hearing
Includes long term care
Will be paid for by payroll taxes
Will require service providers to adhere to lower standard for payment
MIFA will be a very difficult sell and almost impossible to pass much like The Affordable Care Act which required significant influence and politicking. Currently those campaigning on “Medicare for All” are being dishonest on the issue. They should come clean and call it what it is and get better sponsors of the bill.
League City Council has voted to put a non binding resolution on the continued use of Flock cameras on the ballot for the upcoming election in November. According to Google:
A Flock camera is an automated license plate reader (ALPR) system made by Flock Safety. These solar or battery-powered cameras capture the license plates, vehicle makes, models, colors, and unique features of passing cars, logging the data into a searchable network used by police, HOAs, and businesses.
Public concern is growing over the purchase and deployment of Flock license plate cameras, with residents questioning both the necessity of HOA involvement and the initial authorization process. Under Mayor Nick Long’s leadership, the City Council approved spending $899,600 on a 5 year contract to lease 70 cameras from the Flock Group in December 2023. (resolution #23-0604) A related resolution (#23-0611) allocated $200,000 to place these cameras directly in local neighborhoods. Councilmen Crews and Tressler were the sole dissenting votes. Critics continue to question why private homeowners associations require access to this level of surveillance technology.
The Flock system has faced nationwide scrutiny over privacy risks and potential abuse. In one notable incident, a Pasadena police sergeant resigned and surrendered his law enforcement license following an internal investigation that found he used the technology to stalk a female colleague.
Now, Mayor Long is asking residents to weigh in on whether to dismantle the program he originally spearheaded—raising further questions about the administration’s overall strategy.
It’s not what you think it is. You can read the entire new ordinance here.
Last night, the City Council conducted the first reading of a proposed rewrite of their Code of Ethics. If passed, the ordinance will apply to current city employees, Council members, and former city officials. According to the ordinance:
Rather, this Article is intended to provide a framework within which to encourage ethical behavior and enforce basic standards of conduct while providing due process that protects the rights of both the Complainant and the Accused.
If you actually read the proposed ordinance, you’ll see it’s completely standard for cities of any size. Contrary to Councilman Joseph Lowry’s claims, it does not give City Council the power to remove an elected official. Higher governing bodies certainly have that power—Congress expelled George Santos, and the Texas House expelled Bryan Slaton after a severe conduct investigation of providing alcohol to an underaged staffer and having all night sex with her. Houston’s City Council can’t remove a colleague; at most, they can strip committee assignments or restrict participation, as seen previously with Councilman Greg Travis.
What the ordinance does do is set baseline ethics standards—prohibiting harassment, conflicts of interest, illegal gifts, and the misuse of city resources. All are common sense ethical standards. It also creates a structured review process for official complaints, but the available penalties stop short of removal. While Lowry might try to use this new system to level allegations against Mayor Bell and Councilmember Yancy, the process requires verifiable evidence—something Lowry has claimed to hold for five years, though he has yet to produce it. It also addresses frivolous complaints and penalties for filing them.
There is more to the story. Following that report, I reached out to our City Council member to inquire whether the Texas GOP and the elephant handler, Trunks & Humps, had submitted all required permits and paperwork to the Houston First Corporation—the entity that manages exhibits at the GRB. Their website’s “About” section states:
A local government corporation formed in 2011, Houston First’s responsibilities include the development of the destination brand strategy, promoting the city worldwide, driving tourism and convention business, operating numerous facilities, producing events that serve the community, collaborating with commercial and industry partners and much more.
City Councilwoman Sallie Alcorn’s staff received the following response from Houston First:
Please be advised that every facility license agreement issued by HFC requires that the event client “strictly comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations”. Relatedly, we further include a statement that the event client “shall acquire any federal, state and/or municipal permits or licenses required for the event”.
An open records request was submitted to review the facility license agreement, emails, and related correspondence. Unbelievably, the records yielded no agreements, applications, or receipts for the $25,000 Governor Greg Abbott paid to Trunks & Humps. The file contained only a couple of brief emails between Abbott’s staffer, Grayson Freeman, and Brenda Wharry of Houston First Corporation. It seems impossible that this represents the full record required to bring a large, possibly dangerous, animal into a crowded facility.
Either someone provided inaccurate information to our Council member, or the response to the open records request was incomplete. Or maybe Houston First was doing a favor for Abbott which I would not doubt one bit. For those who haven’t seen the footage of the elephant at the convention, the video is linked below, along with the official open records response (which incurred a $1.50 fee).
Former CCISD Trustee Scott Bowen is following in the footsteps of current State Representative Dennis Paul by heavily relying on out-of-district PAC money to finance his campaign.
As noted in a previous post, Bowen raised an impressive $89,000—far exceeding any single-period total from his predecessor. However, $65,000 of that came from just three Political Action Committees: Texans for Lawsuit Reform ($40,000), Texans for a Conservative Majority ($15,000), and—surprisingly—the Texas Trial Lawyers PAC ($10,000). That coalition raises obvious questions.
Looking at his broader fundraising numbers reveals an even clearer pattern: Bowen’s war chest is packed almost entirely with outside capital. Out of $190,884 raised in his latest report:
Out-of-District PACs: $150,549 (79% of total funds)
Individual Donors: $40,335 (21% of total funds)
In-District Support: Only 19% of total funds, coming from just 25 donors.
Struggling to secure financial support from the very community you seek to represent speaks volumes.
By contrast, his opponent, Albert Wittliff, raised 68% of his funds directly from within the district, with PAC contributions totaling just $452 (less than 1%). Wittliff remains an exceptional candidate for State Representative—commanding, articulate, highly experienced, and battle-tested through his service protecting diplomats in hostile environments.
Bowen, on the other hand, comes across as awkward, carries a record of failed policy initiatives as a CCISD Trustee, and lacks the fundamental political skills required for state representation. He is effectively the district’s new “PAC-MAN,” destined to fall in line with leadership rather than advocate for local constituents.
With more candidates campaigning on Medicare For All it might be a good time to ask them what that means. Asking candidates about the mechanics of “Medicare for All” usually stops them in their tracks—because few can actually explain how it would work. M4A sounds simple on the surface, but it represents a radical overhaul of health insurance—not healthcare itself. Medicare doesn’t employ doctors or run hospitals; it’s just government-funded coverage. That distinction is just the beginning of the problem. Senator Bernie Sanders has championed this issue for over four decades with virtually no tangible progress.
Over the years, the branding has constantly shifted—from “Universal Healthcare” to “Single Payer,” and now “Medicare for All.” When the legislation was last estimated, the price tag came in at a staggering $30 trillion. That number alone should give any taxpayer serious pause.
Furthermore, Medicare is far from free. Today’s retirees pay into the fund throughout their working lives and continues to pay at age 65 based on their income and selective coverage. Standard Medicare only covers 80% of costs, leaving gaps for hospital stays (Part A), doctor visits (Part B), and prescriptions (Part D)—all with separate price tags—while completely ignoring dental and vision. Which of these parts would “Medicare for All” actually include?
Beyond the coverage gaps, the economic fallout would be massive:
Job Loss: Over one million Americans work in the health insurance industry. Telling them to simply “find another job” is wildly unrealistic.
Provider Shortages: Many doctors already limit or decline Medicare patients due to low reimbursement rates. Forcing lower payment schedules across the board could bankrupt providers or drive them out of practice.
Lack of a Champion and plan. Passing significant legislation like transforming our healthcare system requires a champion with a history of success. It requires successful politicians who have the power to convince others to join his cause. Bernie Sanders is not that champion. His only successful legislation is renaming a couple of post offices. After 40 years he has only been able to talk about it and nothing else.
Ultimately, the unanswered questions remain: How will it be funded, and what will it truly cost? The next time a politician promises “Medicare for All,” demand specifics—and ask how they expect to pass a 30 trillion-dollar pipe dream through Congress.
And ask Bernie Sanders why he hasn’t made any progress on his pie in the sky idea over the last 40+ years.
Thanks to my friend Allison for pointing this out. Flock cameras are motion-activated automatic license plate readers (ALPR) made by Flock Safety. They are intended to be used to locate individuals, who have broken the law, by reading their license plate and reporting to law enforcement. Law enforcement can then execute warrants on their arrest. Flock cameras has been successful in this endeavor unfortunately law enforcement has already been abusing the cameras by tracking innocent civilians.
The Bay Area is flooded with Flock cameras You can look at the locations of all the Flock cameras by visiting deflock.org. This is the locations of 22 Flock cameras in just one block of Nassau Bay:
Flock cameras are not intended to be used to track civilians which would be a violation of the Constitution but many law enforcement agencies have been caught use the technology to track individuals illegally. In Galveston there are questions whether the abuse resulted in the arrest of a “1st Amendment Auditor” in Galveston. It seems like law enforcement was looking for this individual and waiting for an alert showing he had entered Galveston County. The Sheriff’s office then had a judge sign off on a warrant for his arrest. A lawsuit against Galveston County may be in order.
Many are taking action against the cameras by cutting them down, which is against the law and is not encouraged. The cameras will continue to be a controversial issue until there are safeguards put in place.
In Texas, there are zero limits on what individuals or PACs can donate to political campaigns—and everyday voters are paying the price. Money in politics has spiraled out of control. Conservative commentators love using George Soros as a scapegoat, accusing him of paying for every protest and filling every auditorium. But while they fixate on him, they conveniently ignore the network of billionaires and megadonors actually bankrolling the Texas GOP.
Here are a few of the key players pulling the strings:
Trillionaire Elon Musk. As reported yesterday Musk has donated almost $10 Million in the past two years. He will be funding candidates all across the state especially in Harris County. Maybe that is why the candidates running for office in Harris County have not raised much money.
Billionaire Texas Comptroller Don Huffines. Huffines has just been appointed by Governor Abbott to be the Texas Comptroller. Huffines has used his wealth to win his Senate seat and will continue in his race for Comptroller. So far has used $20 Million of his own money for his race.
Billionaire Timothy Dunn. Has donated $850,000 to various white wing organizations in just 2016 alone. Since 2012 he has donated over $21 Million.
Billionaire Farris Wilks donated over $1.5 Million in 2025. He has donated over $14 Million since 2008.
Millionaire State Senator Money Mayes Middleton. Middleton is spending over $20 Million of his own money to become the Attorney General of Texas. He has spent millions of his own money in his race for the Texas House and Texas Senate.
Millionaires David and Richard Weekley. Both have donated over $34 Million to various individuals and PACs especially to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, an organization that protects companies from being held accountable in court.
Millionaire Alex Fairly. Alex is a new comer to GOP politics donating over $21 Million since 2019, that is in a 7 year span. This includes a one time donation of $20 Million to the Texas Republican Leadership Fund.
Elon Musk has officially stepped into Texas politics—and he’s bringing a massive war chest with him.
After donating a modest $169,500 between 2012 and 2014, Musk went completely dark on Texas political funding for a decade. Now, he’s back with a vengeance: in just the last two years, he has poured a staggering $9.75 million into state political causes, including $500,000 checks to both Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick.
A closer look at where that money is going reveals a clear agenda:
$4 Million to Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR): Despite the name, TLR isn’t about reform, and it certainly isn’t looking out for everyday Texans. Historically bankrolled by deep-pocketed corporate interests—like homebuilders Bob Perry and the Weekley brothers—TLR exists to protect big business at the expense of our constitutional right to a fair trial.
$4 Million to the Judicial Fairness PAC: Formed in 2021, this PAC has quietly amassed over $43 million—with a whopping $33 million coming from just 22 ultra-wealthy individuals and organizations. Their primary objective? Systematically targeting and reshaping local courts, starting with Democratic judges in places like Harris County.
$1.5 Million to Abbott, Patrick, and Senate Fund. With $50 Million in Abbott’s campaign account this donation is not needed but will be used across the state including in Harris County where Abbott has pledged $20 million.
Musk’s sudden surge in spending makes one thing clear: this isn’t about civic engagement. It’s about buying leverage and steering the Texas justice system to serve corporate interests over working people.
“There’s that commandment saying you shouldn’t have imagery or statues or whatever and no other gods than me,” Nath, whose family adheres to Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism and Quakerism, told Houston Public Media. “That’s telling my son that there’s something wrong with him for celebrating his grandpa’s Hinduism. And it’s not just my son, but for all the other kids who come from such a diversity of religions in my kids’ classes.”
The plaintiffs aren’t just arguing that the bill is unconstitutional—though it certainly is. They are pointing out that it violates Texas state law itself, written by the very same lawmakers pushing the Ten Commandments bill.
Catholics, meanwhile, are taking a noticeably different angle. As Cardinal Salvatore Carrera Bastiste put it in Catholic Monthly:
“We take offense to the posting of the Ten Commandments not over parental religious rights, but because the version being posted isn’t based on the true baseline of Christianity: Catholicism. Catholics created Christianity. Catholics lead Christianity. The Pope—the leader of Christians worldwide—is Catholic. If Texas wants to post the Ten Commandments, it must be the Catholic version.”
Father Dominic Pasesenco offered a slightly more direct critique of Texas legislators: “If you’re going to force the goddamn Ten Commandments down children’s throats, at the very least it should be the goddamn Catholic version.”
UPDATE: CJ Beard is scheduled to appear in County Court at Law #3 this Friday, August 7, 2026, before Judge Jack Ewing. Beard’s legal team will request the case—which has stretched on for nearly two years—be dismissed or immediately set for trial. Assistant District Attorney Casey Kirst is assigned to the case, though Kirst failed to attend the previous hearing. See you Friday!
How Long Does Galveston County Need to Resolve a Simple Misdemeanor?
In October 2025, Texas City resident CJ Beard was charged with an “adult misdemeanor”. The complaint stems from a post involving La Marque City Councilman Joseph Lowry—specifically, publishing information about Lowry in the same manner Lowry routinely does to others. Nearly two years later, the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office has yet to adequately review the complaint or prepare its case. On Friday, Beard was back in court only for the DA’s office to ask for yet another continuance.
The conflict began when Lowry went to the police after his address was posted on Facebook, demanding immediate prosecution. This follows a familiar pattern: Lowry instigates and harasses, then contacts law enforcement the moment someone stands up to him. His extensive history of police complaints includes reports of a vandalized garden gnome, flat tires, and even claims of threats involving pigs (read the report here). His recent complaint against a First Amendment auditor was classified as “UNFOUNDED”—though it still resulted in an arrest before charges were dropped a day later. (A lawsuit against the County may be coming)
Unfortunately for Beard, his case hasn’t been resolved in a single day—it has dragged on endlessly while remaining active.
Meanwhile, Lowry has repeatedly posted private information about local residents on his Lousy News Network—including mine (see the full list of individuals targeted over the years here). He has even gone as far as filing County “Doing Business As” (DBA) documents using the names of people he has targeted (county documents here). Filing false government records is a felony, yet the DA’s office refuses to address it. (ask Hunter Biden)
Instead, the District Attorney’s office seems bogged down prioritizing cases like chasing First Amendment auditors and investigating stolen garden gnomes. It is time for the Galveston County DA’s Office to show some accountability: either move forward with prosecution, or drop the charges against CJ Beard once and for all.
This is the second time La Marque City Councilman Joseph Lowry has been sued for back taxes. This time in Case # 26-TX-0085 Lowry’s concrete pumping company, Six Brothers, owes over $27,000 to multiple entities. In his first case Lowry eventually paid his taxes and the suit was dismissed. That cost him $43,000.
But in this latest case he simply didn’t show up and the judge issued a default judgement for over $27,000. According to the judgement, the County can now place liens on his Concrete Pumping business.
You can read the entire judgement issued by Judge Jeth Jones here.
In the words of Matthew McConaughey, all white, all white, all white.
The Texas Republican Party Statewide Candidates for 2026
From the back row, left to right:
Senator Money Mayes Middleton running for Texas Attorney General. Middleton is a multi millionaire. He is self financing his campaign, again. So far he has put $20 Million of his own money into his race. He spent $5 million for his Senate seat and $2 million for his House seat. Middleton is a Christian Nationalist. He has also posted racist comments about members of the Legislature. His main goal as AG is to stop Sharia Law (that doesn’t exist).
Senator Don Huffines running for Texas Comptroller. Huffines is a billionaire. He is self financing his campaign as he did for his run for Senate. As comptroller he has pledged to stop Sharia Law. (that doesn’t exist)
Bo French running for Texas Railroad Commissioner. French is a millionaire and a Texas certified bigot. His comments about Muslims and Jews earned him well deserved criticism from other bigots of the Republican Party. “He has embarrassed us.” He too will fight Sharia Law from attacking crops in the State.
Dawn Buckingham running for Land Commissioner. At the very least she is a normal millionaire.
Ken Paxton running for US Senate. Paxton is a millionaire investing wisely from his $150,000/year salary. He has multiple mistresses and was cheating on his wife way before it was considered a Republican value. He has over 10 homes across the State. He was impeached overwhelmingly by the Texas House.
Nate Sheets running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner. Nate is another millionaire and has used his money from a Honey business to self finance his campaign. He upset Commissioner Sid Miller an extreme far right MAGAt. Nate has said he has “zero tolerance for criminality.” LOL. Jan 6.
Dan Patrick running for Lt Governor. Patrick is a millionaire. Patrick led the effort to acquit Ken Paxton after 8 days of trial and damning testimony. He is a walking billboard for term limits.
Greg Abbott running for Governor. Abbott is a multi-millionaire funded by his lawsuit settlement. He was crippled by running under a tree being cut down. After 12 years in office the State is in ruins except for flooding our state with new businesses driving up home costs and traffic.
Speaker Burrows. He is there just for the photo op with billionaires, millionaires, bigots, racists, and adulterers.
This is your Republican candidates, as popular as herpes at a hot tub party.
According to Scott Bowen, the former CCISD Trustee who was thrown off the board, the race for State Representative is in the bag. On his Facebook page Bowen posted a pic from the State Capitol after being given a tour of the facility and a freshman orientation. He hasn’t been elected and hopefully he won’t be.
Bowen has to be one of the worst candidates for State Representative the Bay Area has seen in decades. Previous Representative, John Davis, owned a successful roofing business. Current Representative Dennis Paul owns an Engineering firm. Bowen’s primary opponent was the President of Bay Area Economic Partnership. Bowen is an employee of a chemical company. He has a failed record of leadership causing chaos and division with the CCISD Board as well as the community. In 2025 he got his ass whooped and thrown off the Board and for good damn reason.
Now he thinks he is entitled to the seat and is flaunting it. Bowen is the new PACMan of the area raising money from PACs outside of the district. Bowen is up against a very well qualified Democrat, Albert Wittliff. Albert owns a security firm. He has an extensive history of applicable experience. He is a commanding individual unlike Bowen is is about as awkward as someone clapping alone in a crowd. Bowen has proved he does not have the skills to interface with the business interests of the area or the community.
Hopefully November will see his entitled ass eat some crow. If you want to learn more about Scott visit bayareahouston.net/scottbowen.
This is what you are supporting. Extremists. They are NOT Democrats. They are the lightning rod for the party. Watch the FoxNews interview co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America:
The Democratic Party needs to put a line in the sand. Instead of inviting the head of DSA, Bernie Sanders, to be the keynote speaker they need to be telling him and DSA to stay the fuck out of our party. We DO NOT support these extreme views. These people are sick.
Some wealthy candidates can afford to campaign without raising money.
State Senator Mayes Middleton, a multimillionaire, has repeatedly used his personal wealth to finance his campaigns for State Representative, State Senator, and now Attorney General. According to campaign finance reports, he has invested nearly $20 million of his own money in his Attorney General campaign. State Senator Don Huffines, a billionaire, is also self-financing his campaign for Texas Comptroller.
By comparison, at the local level, only 5 of Houston’s 15 City Council members currently have outstanding personal loans to their campaigns. You can see the list below. The Houston Chronicle posted an article concerning paying back personal loans using their donors money:
Previously, the mayor, controller and at-large council members could repay themselves no more than $75,000 and district council members no more than $50,000. The new policy, approved unanimously without discussion during Wednesday’s council meeting, removes the caps.
I find it curious that officials who typically don’t rely on personal loans to finance their campaigns voted to remove the repayment cap of $75,000. If a candidate needs to loan themselves more than $75,000 to win a City Council race, it may be a sign they need to better gauge voter support or improve their fundraising efforts.
There are, of course, exceptions. Running for an open seat created by a vacancy, for example, may require a larger, short-term personal investment due to the compressed campaign timeline.
The policy was introduced by Councilman Edward Pollard, who happens to lead the pack in campaign loans with a staggering $1,040,000—nearly half of his $2,197,573 cash on hand. Pollard easily tops the list of Council Members with the deepest pockets, while few of his colleagues even reach six figures in their accounts. (Notably, Council Member Huffman hasn’t filed a finance report since July 2025.)
We need strict limits on campaign loans, especially personal loans from candidates. Running for City Council should be about pounding the pavement, engaging your district, and earning donations—not writing yourself a massive check. Without these limits, city elections will mirror state politics, pricing out everyday residents and reserving public office strictly for the wealthy.
Posted by johncoby 
Bay Area Houston 