If a corporation gives money to Republican Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare’s campaign, it’s a felony. But worry not, Fort Worth voters; this elected official says he only takes money from limited liability companies. And Texas law says that’s OK.

On Oct. 5, O’Hare’s campaign filed updated campaign finance reports with the county elections department, as candidates must do 30 days before an election. The report shows that he is outspending and out-fundraising his Democratic opponent handily, with O’Hare maintaining roughly $836,932 in maintained contributions as of Sept. 24, while Democratic challenger Alisa Simmons’ campaign reported $246,770 in maintained cash contributions through the end of the reporting period.

But as Fort Worth redditors quickly pointed out, it also contained a few irregularities that raised ethical and legal questions. The Oct. 5 filing shows Acquario Italian Restaurant donating $9,000 worth of catered food for a campaign kick-off, while Arlington-based cement company Reliable Paving was recorded as making a $10,000 monetary contribution. Reliable Paving Inc. is a for-profit corporation under the Texas Business Corporation Act, meaning that making or accepting the donation is a third-degree felony under the Texas Election Code.

Commenters on the Fort Worth forum also noted that Reliable Paving, INC. currently holds multiple contracts with Tarrant County, extensions of which were approved under O’Hare’s tenure, raising even more questions. At an April 15 meeting, Tarrant County commissioners unanimously approved a one-year extension for various concrete services from Reliable Paving for $34,558.00. The company was awarded its first contract before O’Hare’s tenure began in 2023.

Sign up for the This Week’s Top Stories newsletter to get the latest stories delivered to your inbox

THANK YOU!

You’re all set.

CLOSE

An updated document from Oct. 6 corrected the previous filing by changing the report’s entity names to Reliable Site and Structures, LLC and More Italian Pizza, LLC. In explaining the correction, O’Hare’s campaign team wrote that while it made a “good faith effort” to list the entities correctly, it submitted the wrong information, a mistake it clarified shortly after, it wrote.

“The donations (1 monetary and 1 in-kind) were made by noncorporate donors but were incorrectly listed on the reports,” the explanation reads. “There was no intention to mislead the public, and the amended report is accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief.”

In a statement from O’Hare spokesperson Tim Maddux, the campaign reiterated that the contributions complied with state law.

“This is yet another example of a failing campaign trying to draw attention away from her record of opposing property tax cuts 16 times, voting against bulletproof vests and pay raises for police, and being out of touch with Tarrant County,” Maddux wrote.

Simmons’ campaign has not returned a request for comment, but the Observer will update this story if one is received.

Limited liability, indeed

So, were the donations legal? Andy Cates, a Texas ethics attorney who wrote a book on state campaign finance, explained that while the contributions can look suspicious, LLCs can donate money under state law because many are smaller businesses, and their political contributions function similarly to individual donations or PAC giving.

“It’s personal money that’s run through a company, and it comes out the other side as basically personal money as well,” Cates said. “So, like, I get it, but it’s not illegal.”

The only thing that can preclude an LLC from giving politically, he said, is having a corporate owner. Reliable Site and Structures, LLC’s registration with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts does not list a corporate interest or the existing Inc. in its records, and neither does the most recent Texas Secretary of State public information report.

Those records also list Kathleen Long as the LLC’s president and director. According to prior reporting for the Fort Worth report, Long owns the for-profit Reliable Paving Inc. with one Charles M. Long. In April, the publication reported that the two donated $40,000 to conservative mayoral candidate Steve Cavendar, which represented the bulk of his contributions at the time. The similarities between the LLC and Inc. don’t stop at leadership or the name; they share the same Dallas-based attorney as registered agent, and the LLC’s website lists its address as next to the Inc.’s main office. The owners did not return the Observer’s phone call.

Still, speaking generally, Cates said those connections aren’t enough to prove an LLC is interdependent with another corporate interest, at least in a way that would make its contributions illegal under Texas election law. He added that contractors often make similar donations to county campaigns through LLCs.

“It’s hard to be annoyed or anything at these companies that actively know the law and work within the bounds of the law and are engaging with these county officials that nobody else does or will,” he said. “They have to raise campaign funds from somebody.”

Even without documentation definitively showing a corporate interest in the LLC, and assuming no corporate money directly funded the contributions, it still feels like a strange, small distinction to make. Reliable Site and Structures, despite having a nearly identical name, address, and apparently the same owners, does not have to play by the same rules as Reliable Paving because of a three-letter difference at the end of their official names, Inc. vs LLC. They’re both managed by a Long, are listed as operating less than a football field apart and work in the concrete business, but remember, only one is barred from making political donations.

And, in all fairness, LLCs are funded largely by individual members. That’s assuming no corporate ownership, of course, but even then, what happens when the chief owner uses funds from an inc. or corporation they also own to fund the entity and it’s political donations?

In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot restrict corporate spending on independent political messaging. The decision led to a surge of newly created Super PACs spending lavishly in U.S. races and a wave of what some analysts have described as “dark money,” or large contributions made anonymously to hide the paper trail. But an important caveat remains: corporate-funded Super PACs can’t donate directly to political campaigns. They may fund commercials or buy airtime for their own messaging in support of a candidate, but direct contributions are off limits. Texas LLCs, however, can still open their checkbooks for their favorite candidate’s reelection campaign. Pretty straightforward, right? 

“A lot of these statutes that we’ve got on the books are from 1987,” Cates said. “But that’s why we also have another branch of government in the judicial branch. We’ve got a lot of case law around corporate giving, corporate contribution bans, stuff like that. So, in lieu of the legislature going through and actually updating these laws to be consistent with judicial precedent, we at least have judicial precedent to guide us.”