"🚨 VOTER FRAUD SCANDAL: TOP DEMOCRAT CAUGHT RED-HANDED ON CAMERA PAYING FOR VOTES!"
Another Democrat has been caught engaging in an activity the party says ‘rarely happens.’
A Democratic political organization in Texas has fired one of its organizers after an undercover video showed him describing a paid voter-outreach program as a “roundabout way of paying people for their votes.”
The video, first published by conservative outlet Townhall, identified the speaker as Sky McAdams, an organizing manager for Texas Majority PAC, a group working to increase Democratic turnout in Texas ahead of the November elections.
In the recording, McAdams said participants received $25 to attend a one-hour online class focused on voting and politics.
“We are paying people $25 to attend a one-hour Zoom class,” McAdams said before characterizing the arrangement as a “roundabout way of paying people for their votes, essentially.”
McAdams also acknowledged in the video that directly paying someone to vote for a particular candidate would be illegal.
“You can’t pay someone to vote for someone,” he said, describing the payment instead as compensation for attending the class.
He referred to the arrangement as “a little gray” and said Republicans would likely object to it.
Texas Majority PAC disputed McAdams’ description of the program and said he was immediately fired.
“Participants in the program are being paid for grassroots organizing work,” a PAC spokesperson told Texas Scorecard. “The way it was described by one rogue employee is factually incorrect, not how we operate, and they were immediately fired.”
The program is operated with Relentless, a political organizing company that specializes in what it calls “paid relational organizing.”
Rather than assigning organizers lists of strangers to contact, relational organizing encourages participants to communicate with friends, relatives and other people they already know.
Relentless says it recruits low-propensity voters and compensates them for the time they spend reaching, persuading and encouraging people in their personal networks to participate in elections.
The company explicitly states that compensation is for organizing work and is not tied to whether a person ultimately votes.
“Is the compensation tied to votes? No. That’s illegal,” Relentless says on its website.
Campaign-finance reporting cited by multiple outlets shows Texas Majority PAC paid Relentless $500,000 in July for a “relational organizing program.”
Relentless says it used similar programs during the 2024 elections in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The company claims those efforts mobilized more than 30,000 low-propensity voters to contact more than 1.2 million friends and family members and produced a net gain of 47,533 Democratic votes.
The Texas program has drawn heightened attention because of the competitive U.S. Senate race involving Democratic nominee James Talarico and state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R).
Texas Majority PAC has supported Democratic turnout efforts, but the publicly available video does not establish that Talarico personally directed the program or that his campaign directly paid anyone to cast a ballot.
The controversy centers on the distinction between legally paying political organizers for campaign work and illegally providing money or something of value in exchange for voting.
Federal law prohibits paying or offering to pay someone to register to vote or to vote in a federal election. Political campaigns and organizations, however, routinely pay employees and contractors to conduct voter outreach, canvassing, and organizing.
Texas Majority PAC maintains that its program falls into the latter category and that McAdams inaccurately described how it operates. Relentless similarly says participants are compensated for their time and organizing work rather than for casting ballots.
The undercover footage nevertheless has brought new scrutiny to paid relational-organizing programs and how political groups structure compensation while trying to reach voters who rarely participate in elections.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
