O’Rourke Barred from Funding Democrats in Redistricting Showdown

A judge in Texas has delivered a major setback to Beto O’Rourke and his nonprofit, Powered by People, amid a fierce battle over redistricting. In a hearing held Friday, Tarrant County District Judge Megan Fahey issued a temporary restraining order against O’Rourke and his organization, following a lawsuit from Attorney General Ken Paxton that accused them of engaging in unlawful fundraising to support Democratic lawmakers who fled the state.

The ruling marks a critical chapter in a political standoff. Republicans, seeking to redraw congressional maps before the 2026 midterms, claim Democrats abandoned their duties by leaving the state—an action that prevented lawmakers from meeting a quorum. In response, O’Rourke and his group stepped in to cover the costs of the lawmakers’ travel, lodging, fines, and other expenses during their absence. Paxton swiftly moved to halt their financial backing, labeling it deceptive and illegal.

Troubling Fundraising Practices

In her ruling, Judge Fahey echoed the state’s concerns. She declared that the way Powered by People raised and distributed funds violated Texas law because it enabled legislators to evade their constitutional responsibilities. The judge cited deceptive conduct, saying that contributions—solicited under the guise of political support—were being used for personal expenses instead.

To stem what she described as irreparable harm to the state, she immediately barred O’Rourke’s group from raising or spending money in connection with the absentee lawmakers. Specifically, the order prohibits using donations to cover travel, accommodations, meals, fines, or any personal expenses for legislators who left the state; it also restricts fundraising platforms like ActBlue from transferring related funds outside Texas.

O’Rourke Strikes Back

O’Rourke responded with fierce defiance, condemning the legal action as strategic silencing of voter advocacy efforts. He called Powered by People “one of the largest voter registration organizations in the country” and insisted that Paxton’s lawsuit was an attempt to intimidate those fighting for voting rights and fair elections.

At a rally in Fort Worth, he vowed to continue the struggle, framing the legal battle as a broader defense of democratic values. His organization quickly filed a countersuit in El Paso, arguing that Paxton’s investigation infringes on constitutional freedoms like free speech and free association—and accusing the attorney general of abusing his power.

Escalation and Contempt Threats

The political skirmish escalated when Paxton moved to hold O’Rourke in contempt of court. In court filings, Paxton cited a rally remark made by O’Rourke—delivered shortly after the restraining order—where he urged his supporters to ignore the rules and fight on. The statement echoed defiance, prompting Paxton to argue that jail time may be warranted to enforce compliance.

Paxton’s position is clear: O’Rourke’s actions cross legal boundaries and deserve consequences, including $500 fines per violation and possible incarceration until he adheres to the court’s order.

Strategic Workaround

In an unexpected twist, O’Rourke’s team announced a clever legal workaround: rather than directing funds to individual legislators, Powered by People redirected the donations to broader caucuses within the Texas House—such as the Democratic Caucus, the Black Caucus, and the Mexican American Caucus. These groups, O’Rourke asserts, can then allocate the funds freely, avoiding direct links to the individual lawmakers who were in hiding. From his perspective, this move stays within legal limits while preserving financial support for Democratic efforts.

The Bigger Picture

This conflict extends far beyond one fundraising PAC. It highlights a battle over democratic norms, power, and representation in a key battleground state.

Texas Republicans have pursued a full suite of legal tactics to regain control of the legislature—from tracking down absentee lawmakers and chasing down civil arrest warrants to using courtroom strategies to strip their seats. Now, O’Rourke finds himself at the center of a broader clash over whether external millions can be deployed to keep legislators from their constitutional duties.

For his part, O’Rourke vows he’s not backing down. He remains committed to organizing on the ground, mobilizing volunteers, and maintaining momentum for voting rights and opposition to what he calls a partisan power grab.

What’s at Stake

The hearing on August 19 will be pivotal, determining whether the temporary restrictions evolve into a longer-term injunction. The outcome could shape how political pressure intersects with election laws in Texas—especially as the redistricting fight continues to escalate and draw national attention.

As the legal and political drama unfolds, the fate of O’Rourke’s nonprofit—and the broader role of outside groups in state legislative standoffs—hangs in the balance.