In a legal showdown that has gripped Texas politics, Beto O’Rourke and his grassroots organization, Powered by People, have scored a significant—though not final—victory against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to halt their fundraising and advocacy activities. The case, which centers on O’Rourke’s support for Texas House Democrats who famously fled the state in 2025 to block a vote on redistricting, highlights the tension between political fundraising, free speech, and the boundaries of state law.
On September 15, 2025, a statewide appeals court indicated that O’Rourke may have acted lawfully when raising money for the Democratic lawmakers. According to Bloomberg Law, the court granted temporary relief to the former congressman, pausing enforcement of a lower court’s restraining order while the case proceeds. The judges signaled uncertainty about whether O’Rourke’s organization, Powered by People, had actually broken any laws under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)—a statute not previously applied to political fundraising or speech in its 50-year history. The court pointedly noted, “The State fails to cite a single case in which the DTPA has been interpreted to apply to political solicitations or political speech in the DTPA’s half century of existence.”
This legal skirmish began in August 2025, when Texas House Democrats left the state in a dramatic bid to delay a vote on new congressional redistricting maps. Their absence denied the Republican majority the quorum needed to proceed. Within days, Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican now running for the U.S. Senate, filed suit against O’Rourke and Powered by People, accusing them of orchestrating a "misleading financial-influence scheme" to support the Democrats’ exodus. Paxton’s office argued that O’Rourke’s fundraising efforts crossed the line into illegal territory, and he initially convinced a lower court to freeze Powered by People’s accounts and bar the group from raising or spending money.
But the legal tide turned on September 12, 2025, when the Fifteenth Court of Appeals sided with O’Rourke. The three-judge panel, all appointed by Governor Greg Abbott, delivered a 23-page ruling that underscored the constitutional protections for political speech. In their decision, the judges wrote, “Tools, whether legal or political, for eliminating quorum breaks may exist. But our Texan founding fathers—like our American founding fathers—took prior restraints on political speech out of the tool kit when they enshrined the right to free speech in our Constitution.”
For O’Rourke and his supporters, the ruling was a lifeline. The restraining order had frozen nearly all of Powered by People’s operations, preventing the group from conducting voter registration drives or other activities vital to their mission. O’Rourke, who acknowledged that his group sent more than $1 million to Democratic organizations in the Texas House, insisted that the funds came with "no strings attached" and were intended simply to support the lawmakers in their stand—just as any political action committee (PAC) might do. “It is because Powered by People and I are fighting so fiercely that Paxton is trying to silence me, destroy our organization and put me behind bars,” O’Rourke stated on his Substack social media account last month. “He fears our successful voter registration and turnout programs as well as our strong support of the Texas Democratic legislators.”
Paxton, for his part, has remained steadfast in his criticism of the Democrats’ tactics and O’Rourke’s support. Earlier this month, as the legal battle raged on, Paxton declared, “Democrats abandoned Texas at the behest of financial backers who promised them money for fleeing the state and abdicating their responsibilities.” While he did not respond to requests for comment following the appeals court’s decision, Paxton’s office has continued to press the case, spending state tax dollars to do so. According to O’Rourke, the drawn-out litigation has forced Powered by People to spend nearly $400,000 in legal fees—a significant burden for a grassroots group.
The stakes are high for both sides. Powered by People has become a major force in Texas voter registration, training volunteers and signing up new voters in advance of the next election cycle. The group’s efforts are seen as crucial to Democratic hopes in a state long dominated by Republicans, and O’Rourke’s activism has made him a lightning rod for partisan conflict. The case has also become a proxy for larger debates over how far political actors can go in supporting legislative walkouts and whether state consumer protection laws like the DTPA should apply to political fundraising and speech.
Despite the Democrats’ return to Texas and the eventual passage of the redistricting maps, the legal fight is far from over. The appeals court’s ruling only grants temporary relief, leaving the ultimate question of O’Rourke’s and Powered by People’s legal liability unresolved. Still, the decision sends a strong signal about the judiciary’s reluctance to curb political speech, especially when it comes to activities protected by both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.
Legal scholars and political observers are watching the case closely. The use of the DTPA against a political organization is unprecedented, and the outcome could set a significant precedent for how campaign finance and political advocacy are regulated in Texas and potentially beyond. The court’s skepticism about applying consumer protection laws to political speech reflects a broader judicial consensus that such speech occupies a special place in American law, shielded from most forms of government interference.
Yet, for all the legal wrangling, the underlying political conflict remains unresolved. Republicans argue that legislative walkouts undermine the democratic process and that financial support for such actions skirts the boundaries of ethical conduct. Democrats, meanwhile, see the lawsuit as a politically motivated attempt to stifle dissent and limit the effectiveness of grassroots organizing. Both sides agree, however, that the outcome of this case could reshape the landscape for political advocacy in Texas for years to come.
As the next election cycle approaches, O’Rourke and Powered by People are gearing up to resume their voter registration and turnout efforts—assuming the courts allow them to do so. The group’s accounts, once frozen, have been unfrozen by the appeals court’s order, but the threat of further legal action still looms. For O’Rourke, the fight is as much about principle as it is about politics. “He fears our successful voter registration and turnout programs as well as our strong support of the Texas Democratic legislators,” O’Rourke reiterated, framing the lawsuit as an existential battle for the future of political participation in Texas.
Whether the courts will ultimately side with O’Rourke or Paxton remains to be seen. For now, though, the case stands as a vivid reminder of the enduring power—and peril—of political speech in the Lone Star State.
