$2.36 million in.$50.6 million back out.
A public-records tool for journalists and Fort Bend County residents who want to trace the money themselves: who funds Dexter McCoy, what county work those donors' firms hold, and how he voted on it. He has raised $2.36 million; the Commissioners Court he sits on authorized $50.6 million in county work to the firms his donors work for. Every figure comes from a public filing or an approved set of Commissioners Court minutes, every one reconciles, and every node opens to its source.
Dexter McCoy has raised $2.36 million as Fort Bend County Commissioner for Precinct 4. Over the same years, the Commissioners Court he sits on authorized $50.6 million in county work to the firms his donors work for — and on $34.7 million of it, the minutes name McCoy himself as the member who made or seconded the motion.
None of that is an accusation, and nothing in the public record establishes that any contract was awarded in exchange for a contribution. What the record does establish is the shape of the relationship, in documents anyone can pull: who gives, what their firms get, and what McCoy did in the room when it was voted on. This page is built so you can check every number yourself.
Each links to the full finding, with its sources and the underlying table.
The firms with the most county work authorized while their people were funding him. The last column is the part McCoy personally put on the floor.
| Firm | Its people gave McCoy | County work authorized | He moved or seconded |
|---|
Texas law bars direct corporate contributions to candidates. Firm totals are the aggregated giving of individuals who listed that firm as their employer, not corporate money. Registered committees are counted separately.
The Money tab is the network. Search any donor, firm or official and click the node: you get every contribution with its date, amount and the exact report it came from, plus every other Texas candidate that donor has funded.
The Coalition tab does the same for endorsements, committees, consultants and the county's other elected Democrats, with an evidence tier on every single edge.
Every figure here traces to one of five public repositories, all linked on the Method & limits tab: the county's campaign finance portal, the Commissioners Court agendas and minutes, the Texas Ethics Commission, the FEC, and the campaign's own published pages.
The reconciliation test. Contributions extracted here sum to the filer's own schedule subtotals to the cent on all 18 reports, and expenditures do the same. A missed entry or a misread amount would break those sums.
It does not infer alliance from a photograph, treat a donation as an endorsement, or describe a consent-block vote as though McCoy singled the item out. Those distinctions are set out on the Method tab and enforced in the data.
Where the record is thin, it says so. 14 contract items whose vote role could not be established are recorded as unknown rather than guessed.
The dataset behind this page covers 2,558 contributions, 1,717 expenditures, 308 dated Commissioners Court actions and 537 other-candidate filings, July 2021 through August 2026.
If you are reporting on this and want a specific record pulled — a filing page, a set of minutes, a roll call — every item on this page carries the source document it came from.
Campaign vendors are a commercial relationship, not a political one. They are on this map because a shared consultant is a documentable link between two campaigns, and because one pairing in this table is unusual.
| Operative or firm | Paid by McCoy | Other Texas clients, from state filings |
|---|
Client lists come from the Texas Ethics Commission's bulk expenditure files — every other Texas committee that reported paying the same vendor.
Sorted by evidence tier. A donation is not an endorsement and none are counted as one here. Click any endorser on the map above for their party, their documented affiliations and their own public statements.
| Endorser | Type | Race | Evidence |
|---|
Every currently-seated elected Democrat whose office covers any part of the county, set against the money already in this dataset: what McCoy's own donor pool has given each of them, and what they have given him. Appointed judges are left out because they were never elected, and Texas municipal offices are nonpartisan, so mayors are listed separately below.
| Official | Office | From his donor pool | Gave McCoy | Documented tie to McCoy |
|---|
“From his donor pool” counts only money from people who also gave McCoy; money these officials raised elsewhere is out of scope. A name is matched only when the surname and at least one given name agree — a surname-only test put the wrong person on this map once, and is not used.
A map that shows only allies is a broken map. These are the antagonisms the record actually establishes, each from an explicit public statement or vote.
Strongest first.
Strip out the individuals and look only at the political committees. McCoy has taken — from — registered committees. — of it — from — committees — is registered at a Fort Bend County address. Everything else is out-of-county money: Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and then — from — committees registered in other states entirely — Ohio, Kansas, Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington, D.C.
| Committee | Registered address | To McCoy |
|---|
| Committee | City | To McCoy |
|---|
Most of these are the corporate committees of the engineering, architecture and construction firms that hold county contracts — Pape-Dawson and KCI in San Antonio, Cobb Fendley in Houston, Terracon in Olathe, Woolpert in Beavercreek. They are not neighbours funding a neighbour. They are vendors funding the man who votes on their work, from corporate addresses that in several cases are not in Texas.
Voting yes with the rest of the Court is one thing. Being the member who puts the item on the floor is another. Across the 223 discretionary contract decisions involving firms whose people fund his campaign, the minutes name McCoy as the commissioner who moved or seconded the item 98 times, carrying $34,654,204. None of this is inferred: every one was read off the verbatim motion text.
A commissioner is elected from one precinct but votes on work in all four. Of the items he moved or seconded, the minutes place $17,253,721 across 37 items in his own Precinct 4 and $11,974,638 across 35 items elsewhere — Precincts 1, 2 and 3, or countywide. The remaining 26 items name no precinct at all. A firm does not need work in his precinct to need his vote.
| Firm | He moved or seconded | Items | Precincts | Its people gave him |
|---|
Amendment figures are the increase stated in the minutes (“to increase the contract in the amount of…”), not the restated contract total, so nothing here double-counts a contract as it grows.
On 27 August 2024 Commissioners Court approved four Project Management Agreements, each for exactly $1,500,000, each to a different firm, each tied to one precinct's share of the 2023 mobility bond:
| Firm | Bond project | Precinct | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| KCI Technologies | 23000b | Precinct 1 | $1,500,000 |
| LJA Engineering | 23000c | Precinct 4 | $1,500,000 |
| Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers | 23000d | Precinct 4 | $1,500,000 |
| WSB | 23000g | Precinct 2 | $1,500,000 |
Precinct 4 received two of the four. Precinct 3 received none. These are not design contracts. The county is paying outside firms to manage its own engineering programme — schedule, budget and paperwork across whole batches of bond road projects — and it hired them from the same pool of firms that hold the design contracts underneath.
LJA's people gave McCoy $52,500; the Pape-Dawson PAC gave $31,500. Under Texas Government Code Chapter 2254 engineering contracts are not awarded to the lowest bidder — they are awarded on qualifications, with the fee negotiated after the firm is chosen. That is the widest professional discretion in county procurement, and it is the discretion being exercised here.
Fort Bend First PAC registered its treasurer on 10 September 2024. On 27 September McCoy's campaign paid it $40,000, booked on his own Schedule F1 with the single word "Donation." It is the largest political transfer in five years of his filings, and it is 55.5% of every dollar that committee has ever reported raising. Four days later the PAC reported sending $30,000 to the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation — the address of record of the AFL‑CIO Working People PAC, which had given McCoy $34,970.50 in‑kind in 2022 and which endorsed him again in 2026. Both sides of both transfers appear in filings.
Three further facts, each independently verified against primary records: the PAC's registered address is the same Richmond post office box McCoy's campaign gives as its own mailing address; its treasurer, Abrahim Javed, is himself a McCoy donor and a 2024 Precinct 3 primary candidate; and ten vendors appear on both the PAC's and the campaign's expenditure schedules, including his two largest.
One timing observation, stated flatly. The committee's first reporting period opens on 27 September 2024 — the day after the 30‑day pre‑election reporting window closed. The result is that the transfer first became public on 28 October, eight days before the election, rather than on 7 October. A July 2026 ethics complaint asks the Texas Ethics Commission to determine the relationship between the campaign and the committee. The complaint is unsigned, no ruling is known, and it does not allege that McCoy controlled the PAC.
Seventeen Commissioners Court items across 2023–2026, eight of them Precinct 4 work, including a new $1,341,647 agreement for Gaines Road Segment 2 and a $488,373 increase to engineering inspection services. Principal Harish Jajoo gave McCoy $25,000. The distinction that matters: on five of the Precinct 4 items McCoy did not merely vote yes inside a consent block — he made the motion.
On 18 December 2025 Lina Sabouni was reappointed to the board of Fort Bend County Reinvestment Zone No. 1 through 2029 under the agenda item designated "Commissioner, Pct. 4" — McCoy's appointment slot — inside a consent block that McCoy moved. This is an appointment, not a contract; her firm holds no county contract in the record. It is nonetheless the cleanest documented instance of a donor receiving something McCoy personally controlled.
Stonehenge Holdings has the largest and most unusual county relationship in this dataset — the EpiCenter and the Sheriff Training Facility — and its CEO, Kevin Matocha, is named in the minutes themselves. He and Andrew Schatte have given McCoy — directly, and $50,000 each to a PAC that then gave McCoy $10,000. Of every money-and-vote pairing in this dataset, the tightest ones are here.
| Date | Amount | Money | Gap | Nearest Stonehenge action |
|---|
The single tightest pairing in the entire dataset is here. On 26 March 2024 Kevin Matocha gave McCoy $5,000. That same day McCoy abstained on Item 32C, the Public Facility Corporation bonds funding the Sheriff Training Facility Project Management Agreement. On the same day he voted yes on Items 32A and 32B — he abstained only on the training-facility item.
A second chain sits in March 2026. McCoy abstained on Item 20B on 12 March; six days later Matocha and Schatte each sent $20,000 to Texans for Good Government; nine days after that the committee sent McCoy $10,000.
What the statistics say about it. Across 24 Stonehenge court actions and 21 money events, two landed on the exact day of an action where chance predicts 0.3 — nominally p = 0.04. But that is one window out of four tested, and it does not survive correction for having looked at four. The ±7, ±14 and ±30 day windows show nothing at all. The dates are real; the statistical case is weak.
| Date | Item | Vote | Tally |
|---|
Three committees appear on both sides of his ledger. The direction and size of each is documented, and in one case he has paid out more than he took in.
| Committee | Gave McCoy | McCoy paid it | Note |
|---|
Quinn Development, LLC received a service agreement out of closed session in January 2025 with competitive bidding expressly waived under Local Government Code §262.024(a)(4), funded at $200,000 in February, then amended to $650,000 by September. McCoy voted for or seconded each step. The competitive-exemption justification is not published.
Texans for Good Government gave McCoy $10,000. Across all seven of its Texas Ethics Commission reports it has itemized exactly two expenditures totalling $15,000, against $249,500 in reported receipts, and its cover-sheet total-expenditure lines are blank. Other filers report at least $185,000 leaving it, and McCoy's own $10,000 does not appear on its schedules at all. Its largest funder is Jeanne Shipp of Baytown at $100,000; Andrew Schatte and Kevin Matocha gave $50,000 each on identical dates. This is a finding about that committee's reporting, not about McCoy.
The most robust pattern in the data is not about McCoy specifically. His donors fund the whole Commissioners Court, and they fund his colleagues more heavily than they fund him.
| Official | Office | Received from McCoy's donors | Donors shared |
|---|
Totals cover only donors who also gave to McCoy. Money these officials raised elsewhere is out of scope.
Authorized by the Commissioners Court, January 2023 through August 2026, against what people at each firm gave McCoy — and how much of it he personally moved or seconded. The precinct column is descriptive: he votes on all of it regardless.
| Firm | Authorized | Items | He moved / seconded | Precincts | What they do | Donated to McCoy |
|---|
Each row is one contribution from a firm-affiliated donor, set beside the nearest Commissioners Court decision on that same firm's business, with the gap in days and McCoy's recorded role in that vote. Move the slider to widen or tighten the window.
| Gift | Amount | Donor | Firm | Gap | The vote | McCoy’s role |
|---|
Every figure traces to a public document. The gaps are stated rather than filled.
All 25 reports Dexter McCoy has filed with the Fort Bend County Clerk, July 2021 through June 2026, parsed from the scanned PDFs by word coordinate rather than by summarization.
Validation: the extracted contributions sum to the filer's own schedule subtotals to the cent on all 20 reports, and the expenditures reconcile to the cent against two independent cover-sheet figures on all 20. An entry missed or an amount misread would break those sums. Contested readings were resolved by rendering the page image and reading it directly.
Where two filings cover the same period, the corrected version filed 20 August 2026 supersedes the original; superseded records are excluded rather than double-counted.
297 sets of approved minutes and 324 agendas — the complete Commissioners Court record for McCoy's tenure, January 2023 to August 2026 — full-text searched for every donor-affiliated firm.
"Authorized" is not "paid." Figures are new agreement values plus amendment increments as stated in the minutes. Fort Bend County publishes no check register, so actual payments cannot be established from public sources.
Expenditure schedules give the paid relationships directly. The consultant network comes from the Texas Ethics Commission's full bulk expenditure corpus — every other Texas committee that reported paying the same vendor. PAC registrations, officers and both-direction flows come from TEC filer records and FEC bulk files.
Endorsements and appearances come from campaign and organization publications, named news outlets, and social posts. Every one of those edges carries an evidence tier and the map places better-sourced ties closer to the centre.
308 individual Commissioners Court items naming a donor-affiliated firm, each with its own date, action type, amount and McCoy's role in the vote — moved, seconded, approved in a consent block, abstained, voted no, or absent.
Every date is taken from the document's own "BE IT REMEMBERED" header rather than the listing, because the agenda system's sequence numbers point to different dates than the index implies. Every role was re-read against the verbatim motion and roll-call text; none is inferred, and 14 items whose role could not be established from the minutes are recorded as unknown rather than guessed.
This is what the vote-role figures and the contribution-to-vote gaps are built on.
87 of the 537 other-candidate filings have no text layer and roughly 333 more are handwritten scans. This includes every filing by County Judge KP George and Sheriff Eric Fagan — if a donor gave to either, this map would not show it. Running OCR on handwriting produces confident invented names, so it was not done.
Also invisible: subcontractors under a prime consultant, purchases below the Court's approval threshold, Toll Road Authority actions never elevated to the Court, and contracts awarded before January 2023. On the political side, the county's press-release archive blocks automated access, Instagram and LinkedIn are login-walled, and archived versions of the campaign's own endorsements page could not be retrieved.
Every political edge carries one of these. On the Coalition map, distance from the centre is the tier — nothing else.
| Tier | Means | Edges |
|---|
Nearly every contract in this dataset passed unanimously inside a consent block of 20 to 40 items. "McCoy voted for this contract" is technically true of almost all of them and substantively close to meaningless. The map and the findings therefore distinguish items McCoy personally moved or seconded from items he approved as part of a block.
Texas law bars direct corporate contributions to candidates. Firm totals are the aggregated giving of people who listed that firm as their employer — not corporate money. Registered PACs are the exception and are shown separately.
A data-quality note. The contribution form prints a “PAC” checkbox beside the contributor's name. On these scans it sometimes attached to an individual, inventing committees that have no registration anywhere. Every such name was checked against the Texas Ethics Commission's full filer registry — the current committee list and the historical file, which carries terminated and inactive committees — and against the FEC. Twelve turned out to be real registered committees and are published as committees, with their registered addresses; five had no registration under any authority and are published as the individuals they belong to.