Under Texas Election Code § 255.003, a person (including a candidate or officeholder) may not use public funds or public resources for political advertising. All candidates are absolutely covered by this law.
For the uninitiated, being a candidate means that the content of the ad is clearly political advertising. If so, then that scrutiny is higher, not lower. In the ad above, Martha Davila – one of three candidates for the Brownsville Navigation District's Place 4 – is filmed inside the Port of Brownsville's executive building facing the port's main gate.
So if any candidate films inside a public building, in most cases it is not allowed. This includes filming a campaign ad in city hall, county buildings, port buildings, district buildings, government offices, lobbies, or meeting rooms even if the candidate is not currently an officeholder, no money is exchanged, it's “just a background shot.” It can still be considered use of a public resource for political advertising.
In the case of the race that Davila is in, the other two candidates – Luis Villarreal and Prisci Roca-Tipton – are also prohibited from using public property and assets for political campaigning. They have so far avoided filming in the port's buildings in their ads.
The key legal logic applies since the issue is not who you are (candidate vs. private citizen), but rather: "Did you use government property or resources to support a campaign? To state it more simply: A public building = government resource; a campaign video = political advertising. That combination is what creates the violation.
Walking through a public building while being filmed incidentally may be a gray area, but staging or intentionally filming a campaign ad inside is a problem. You simply cannot use it as a campaign asset, even if they got permission and a public official says: “You can film here.”
They cannot authorize use of public resources for political ads.
They cannot authorize use of public resources for political ads.
The bottom line is that a candidate filming a political ad inside a public building is still likely a violation of Texas law, because it constitutes using public resources for political advertising – regardless of their status as a candidate
Got it?
17 comments:
The issue here points to a broader need for stronger enforcement of existing rules at the Port. Rather than relying on interpretation after the fact, the Port should take a more proactive approach by clearly tightening its internal policies.
In practical terms, that means adding a strict clause to Port policy explicitly prohibiting the use of Port property for promoting any cause—whether political, religious, or otherwise. With clear language in place, situations like this could be addressed quickly and professionally, avoiding confusion or controversy.
If a violation occurs, it should be handled politely but firmly, making it clear that such use is not permitted. At the same time, the Port should communicate to all candidates and organizations that these rules will be consistently enforced going forward.
Looking ahead, the Port Commission should consider implementing meaningful consequences, including substantial fines and potential restrictions on future access to Port facilities. Given that the Port is a sensitive and critical industrial complex, maintaining neutrality and proper use of its resources should be treated as a priority, not an afterthought.
Got it?
What did roca tipton do for BISD?
Nada, zilch, nothing !
Ernesto ( Teflon Don) Gutierrez ordered the port director to allow her to film. They knew it was illegal but Ernesto needs to her to win to continue to expand his port presence at the expense of long time tenants at the port.
I've seen videos of 1st amendment advocates film in a public lobbies, foyers, hallways, or any other area that is non-restricted to the public but even they're not allowed to record in any area if it's for commercial use. If I worked there I would have lied to her.
This area is private, we don't allow filming, then signed to her the letter C and gestured, "you have ID?" All visitors need to provide ID to enter this area. It's the law Mam!
The Texas ethics commission will just give her a fine. I think 500 dollars for every view of Sid video. OUCH!
@7:32
You got have of it right. Tito Lopez and Ernesto Gutierrez instructed port personnel to allow her to film. Mr. Looez was present during the filming
anyone connected to steve guerra and ernie gutierrez is a NO for me. Sorry Martha but your association to them will force many to vote against you. We don't need la mafia de Matamoros in the port, we need to get rid of them.
Both of these 2 are Steve's cronies they are there because of Steve, so blame that fat bastard for what's going on at the Port.. He contuines to have control over what's happening there.
Agree 100% with this. Need to vote for somebody else!
100% against anyone affiliated with Steve. My family and friends will be supporting Gonnella. I’ve heard through the grape vine he was the only person to step-up to the Pork commissioner, herd it was a heated argument!
The sea doesn't like females. All sailors know that a female in a boat brings bad luck.
Dumb blonde.
You are so self serving in who you choose to sacrifice in your blog! Why the hell don’t you talk about JP Chuy Garcia using county property to hand out breakfast bars on the steps of the courthouse campaigning for the 107th? Fucking go after him! He has campaigned for three years on taxpayers dime and you don’t say shit! He’s at events campaigning during the work day and you don’t say shit! YOU are the problem being so selective in what you report and who you choose to pick on! Your buddy rat Trevino is another one that has stolen millions from tax payers and you still kiss his ass!
Yes she really is a dumb blonde. She had the audacity to use Gonellas meet and greet as if it was her event. Who does that? Seriously
Roca is an idiot! She needs to get a hobby and stay out of public service.
Martha loves free events and free fajita,
Mexicans being Mexicans
Not following rules
Post a Comment