Texas voters are asked the question “Are you white?” » political texts targeting James Talarico

Several viewers contacted NBC Dallas-Fort Worth after receiving text messages asking, “Are you white?” The messages then claim that James Talarico called white men “America’s leading terrorist threat” and direct recipients to a political attack website funded by the American Political Action Committee.

The text messages and the site of the attack reference a comment Talarico made after a mass shooting in which he said: “Radicalized white men pose the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country.” Talarico was referring to a Department of Homeland Security report released during the first Trump administration that described white supremacist extremists as the “most persistent and lethal” threat among domestic violent extremists.

Rep. Marc Veasey, a Fort Worth assemblyman and Talarico ally, described the texts as a return to the racial politics of the 1980s and 1990s.

Veasey said he believed these messages were an effort to appeal to voters frustrated by issues such as war and high prices.

“They’re unhappy with the war, they’re unhappy with these high prices,” Veasey said.

Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at SMU, said the texts would likely be just the beginning as outside groups pump money into the competitive U.S. Senate race.

“You see people spending more and more across state lines and trying to shape the balance of power, in the races they think are the most hotly contested and most potentially winnable,” Wilson said.

As for the American Political Action Committee, or AMERIPAC, Federal Election Commission records show the Bellevue, Washington-based group has been registered with the agency since 1980.

The group’s website identifies longtime conservative and Second Amendment advocate Alan Gottlieb as its founder. NBC Dallas-Fort Worth reached out to Gottlieb and the group’s treasurer for comment and did not receive a response.

The key to understanding these messages is the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts defending or against candidates, as long as the spending was independent of the candidates’ campaigns.

These messages are an example of independent political spending, which allows outside groups to spend money defending or against candidates without coordinating with their campaigns. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has expanded the ability of corporations and unions to finance this type of political speech.