ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Readers can sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article is a result of a collaboration between ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine. Note: This story is exempt from Creative Commons licensing until November 2.
Reporting Highlights
- Statehouse Influence: Oil tycoons Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks have significantly influenced the Texas statehouse by funding primary campaigns against other Republicans, steering the political landscape to the far right.
- Christian Nationalist Beliefs: The Texas statehouse is advancing policies that threaten the separation between church and state.
- Trump Ties: Dunn is connected to think tanks aiming to influence a potential second Trump administration.
In December, Sid Miller, Texas commissioner of agriculture, posted a photo on social media brandishing a double-barrel shotgun and invited his followers to join him on a “RINO hunt.” Glenn Rogers, a state representative and one of Miller’s targets, responded angrily, challenging Miller’s honor and calling him a narcissist.
Rogers, a 68-year-old rancher and grandfather from rural Texas, entered the Legislature in 2021. He co-authored legislation allowing Texans to carry handguns without a permit, supported the Heartbeat Act, and voted to grant police the authority to arrest suspected undocumented migrants in schools and hospitals. However, during the primary season, Rogers faced numerous attacks branding him as a RINO and a liberal, largely originating from his challenger’s campaign and organizations such as Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and Texas Gun Rights.
These attacks were fueled by Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, billionaires from the oil industry, who have created the most powerful political machine in Texas, influencing the Legislature through various think tanks, media entities, PACs, and nonprofits. Their strategy has pushed the statehouse further right.
Similar to other conservative billionaires, Dunn and Wilks aim to reduce regulations and taxes but also seek to steer the government towards Christian rule. Their ideological funding has resulted in more than $29 million from Dunn and his wife to Texas candidates and PACs since 2000, with the Wilks family contributing $16 million. They have also supported federal races and conservative media.
Rogers believes his refusal to support a school voucher bill and his vote to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, a key ally of Dunn and Wilks, led to their targeting. The attacks, often distorting his stance on immigration, contributed to his loss by 27 percentage points in the primaries.
Despite their significant spending, Dunn and Wilks have often seen mixed electoral success. Political strategists attribute this to their uncompromising approach. However, their sustained efforts have reshaped the political landscape in Austin into a continuous primary season, forcing legislators to adhere to their agenda or face relentless challenges funded by their vast network.
Beyond Texas, Dunn and Wilks focus on a broader Christian nationalist agenda. They have funded groups promoting policies that intertwine religion with public life. This includes Project Blitz, pushing for religious posters in schools, and PragerU, spreading conservative educational materials.
Recent Supreme Court decisions and political rhetoric have amplified Christian nationalist beliefs, with voters increasingly viewing policy debates through a religious lens, leading to a rise in political violence justified by these ideologies.
Dunn, closely tied to Trump’s political initiatives, aims to influence a potential second administration, preparing for substantial changes in federal governance. His contributions extend to America’s First Policy Institute and other MAGA-aligned organizations working on detailed plans for transforming the federal bureaucracy.
Dunn’s financial influence continues to grow, highlighted by his recent sale of his oil company for $12.4 billion and subsequent political contributions aimed at steering national policy.
Despite these developments, Rogers remains skeptical of future political candidates willing to face the same challenges without billionaire backing, emphasizing the overwhelming influence of personal wealth in shaping political outcomes.
This intricate web of influence underscores how personal ideology and financial power can significantly alter democratic structures, leading to an increasingly polarized political landscape.
