Texas Codes

Tex. Elec. Code § 255.003 (2026)

Unlawful Use Of Public Funds For Political Advertising

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 255.003. UNLAWFUL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR POLITICAL ADVERTISING. (a) An officer or employee of a political subdivision may not knowingly spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a communication that factually describes the purposes of a measure if the communication does not advocate passage or defeat of the measure.

(b-1) An officer or employee of a political subdivision may not spend or authorize the spending of public funds for a communication describing a measure if the communication contains information that:

(1) the officer or employee knows is false; and

(2) is sufficiently substantial and important as to be reasonably likely to influence a voter to vote for or against the measure.

(c) A person who violates Subsection (a) or (b-1) commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for an offense under this section or the imposition of a civil penalty for conduct under this section that an officer or employee of a political subdivision reasonably relied on a court order or an interpretation of this section in a written opinion issued by:

(1) a court of record;

(2) the attorney general; or

(3) the commission.

(e) On written request of the governing body of a political subdivision that has ordered an election on a measure, the commission shall prepare an advance written advisory opinion as to whether a particular communication relating to the measure does or does not comply with this section.

(f) Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply to a port authority or navigation district.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 644 (H.B. 1720), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 843 (S.B. 2085), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2018).
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2018). · cites it 2× “" TEX. ELEc. CODE § 255.003(a). A school district is a political subdivision and is therefore subject to this provision.”
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2017). “See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 255.003(b). Thus, Fort Bend ISD could communicate to its voters that although it adopted an increased maintenance and operations tax rate for the coming year, because the district reduced the debt service tax rate, the overall tax rate will be lower than…”
Carl Joiner v. Matt Wiggins (Tex. App. 2024). “” 1 See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 255.003(a) (providing that officer or employee of political subdivision may not knowingly spend or authorize spending of public funds for political advertising).”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 255.003(a) — 2 cases
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2018). “" TEX. ELEc. CODE § 255.003(a). A school district is a political subdivision and is therefore subject to this provision.”
Carl Joiner v. Matt Wiggins (Tex. App. 2024). “” 1 See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 255.003(a) (providing that officer or employee of political subdivision may not knowingly spend or authorize spending of public funds for political advertising).”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 255.003(b) — 1 case
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2017). “See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 255.003(b). Thus, Fort Bend ISD could communicate to its voters that although it adopted an increased maintenance and operations tax rate for the coming year, because the district reduced the debt service tax rate, the overall tax rate will be lower than…”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 255.003(d) — 1 case
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2018). “" TEX. ELEc. CODE § 255.003(a). A school district is a political subdivision and is therefore subject to this provision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.