$2.36 million to McCoy's campaign.At least $50.5 million in county work authorized to his donors' companies.
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 at least $50.5 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 at least $50.5 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.
A second set of findings has nothing to do with donors. It is what the minutes show him doing with the Court's ordinary powers: seconding the motion that set his own salary in each of his three budget cycles, seconding an order that waived the county's competitive bidding law, moving the first contract for a building financed with debt voters were never asked to approve — on the day those voters were at the polls — and moving the purchasing blocks that carried a consulting contract to $33.7 million. Those are in the findings tab too.
And one finding sits behind both: ninety of the donors funding McCoy funded KP George first — $525,497 of McCoy's money, better than a fifth of everything he has raised, from people already on the county judge's donor list before they were on his.
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.
Lina Sabouni has given McCoy $35,000 across six checks between December 2022 and April 2026. She is the principal of Autoarch Architects, which holds $894,940 in Fort Bend County design work across four Commissioners Court items. McCoy personally made the motion on the two largest.
| Date | Item | Amount | McCoy's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 Jun 2024 | Mission Bend Senior Center design, Precinct 4 | $737,500 | Moved |
| 24 Sep 2024 | Downtown Missouri City, Precinct 2 | $25,000 | Consent block |
| 11 Feb 2025 | Healthcare Clinic at Mission Bend, Precinct 4 | $144,000 | Moved |
| 22 Apr 2025 | Healthcare Clinic, second amendment, Precinct 4 | $13,340 | Consent block |
Then the appointment. On 18 December 2025 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, the one seat on that board no other member of the Court controls — inside a consent block McCoy moved. Her fifth check, $5,000, had arrived eight weeks earlier.
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.
Two consulting agreements let without competitive bidding, then six authorizations the minutes themselves call advance payment — county money released before the service is rendered. McCoy moved the largest one himself.
| Date | Item | Amount | Vote | McCoy's role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 Jan 2023 | Interim services, IT Facility pre-development | $300,000 | 4–1 | Voted yes |
| 9 May 2023 | Consulting, law enforcement training project | $300,000 | 5–0 | Voted yes |
| 27 Jun 2023 | Advance payment, EpiCenter pre-opening | $500,000 | 4–0 | Seconded |
| 5 Dec 2023 | Advance payment, EpiCenter operations | $500,000 | 4–1 | Voted yes |
| 13 Aug 2024 | Advance payment, EpiCenter operations | $175,000 | 5–0 | Consent block |
| 12 Nov 2024 | Advance payment, EpiCenter operations | $1,000,000 | 5–0 | Moved |
| 9 Oct 2025 | Advance payment, EpiCenter operations | $600,000 | 5–0 | Consent block |
| 26 Feb 2026 | Advance payment, EpiCenter operations | $400,000 | 5–0 | Consent block |
Matocha gave $3,000 on 16 October 2024. Twenty-seven days later McCoy made the motion on the $1,000,000 advance.
| 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.
Fort Bend County sets its elected officials' salaries by a vote of the Commissioners Court, which means five people vote on their own pay. In each of McCoy's three budget cycles the motion was made by Commissioner Prestage and seconded by McCoy. The figures below are from the county's own salary schedules, on the row labelled Commissioner, Pct 4 (McCoy).
| Budget | Base salary | Drainage Board supp. | Total | Vote | Against | McCoy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2023 (adopted before he arrived) | $150,648 | $2,400 | $153,048 | — | — | — |
| FY2024 | $156,673 | $5,000 | $161,673 | 5–0 | — | Seconded |
| FY2025 | $170,919 | $5,000 | $175,919 | 4–1 | Meyers | Seconded |
| FY2026 | $176,047 | $5,000 | $181,047 | 4–1 | Judge George | Seconded |
Base pay up $25,399, or 16.9 percent. Counting the Drainage Board supplement the county lists beside it, total compensation went from $153,048 to $181,047 — $27,999, or 18.3 percent, across three budgets he seconded. He seconded the proposal and the adoption in each cycle; five votes in all.
The Drainage Board supplement is paid to the members of the Commissioners Court and to no other elected official in the county. In McCoy's first budget it went from $2,400 to $5,000 — more than doubling — and the finance director described the item on the record as “a change of the Drainage Board Supplement for the Commissioners Court.” That is the one element of these three schedules that raised the pay of the people voting and nobody else. It carried 5–0 on McCoy's second.
The 24 September 2024 meeting was called to order by Judge George at 1:00 p.m. The minutes record that Commissioner McCoy arrived at 1:29 p.m., during discussion of Item 30E — in time to second the salary item and defend it from the bench. His stated reason, in the minutes: the salaries are “the average of comparable counties.”
Two residents had already spoken against that item. Jon Welch of Richmond “spoke against Item 30H, FY2025 Salaries for Elected Officials”; Misty Felipp “spoke against the FY2025 Salaries.” A month earlier Rodrigo Carreon of Fresno had spoken against the proposal. Commissioner Meyers, voting no, said he “did not have an opportunity to provide input.”
MPACT Strategic Consulting, LLC came in as the county's pandemic-relief consultant and never left. The agreement has been amended fourteen times. The minutes state the running total each time, and the number in the county's own words on 22 January 2026 is a contract “not to exceed $33,709,254.95.”
| Date | Item | Added | Running total | McCoy's role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 Feb 2025 | 34P — Thirteenth Amendment | $399,650 | $33,609,579.95 | Moved the block |
| 22 Jan 2026 | 40A — Fourteenth Amendment | $99,675 | $33,709,254.95 | Moved the block |
| 22 Jan 2026 | 40B — new agreement, ARPA after-action report | $218,000 | — | Moved the block |
Item 40B is worth reading twice: it pays the ARPA consultant $218,000 to write the after-action report on the ARPA programme it was itself paid to run.
7 November 2023 was election day in Fort Bend County. That afternoon McCoy made the motion on an $854,550 architectural and engineering agreement with Collaborate Arch, LLC for a new county Elections Administration Facility. It carried 3–1; Meyers voted no, Prestage was absent.
Meyers asked how the building would be paid for. County Auditor Ed Sturdivant answered, in the minutes: the facility “will be funded with Certificates of Obligation” — the instrument that lets a county borrow without asking voters. Facilities director Jamie Knight put construction at “around $11 million.”
Nineteen months later the bill arrived on the record. On 8 July 2025, directly after McCoy moved a purchasing block that itself carried Certificate-of-Obligation items, Meyers said: “The Certificates of Obligation debt has grown from about $75 million in 2020 to over $300 million today. This is a word of caution about us continuing to build our debt, which is now $1.5 billion.” Two weeks earlier the county auditor had testified that CO borrowing at “about $145 million” had “created some strain on the upcoming budget process,” and finance director Pamela Gubbels put the fund balance at 24 percent against a 30 percent target, with three cents of the tax rate moved into debt service.
On 23 July 2024, coming out of closed session, the Court adopted the Mason Tillman disparity study and in the same order engaged consultant TIP Strategies. Moved by Prestage, seconded by McCoy, carried 5–0. The order, in the county's own words, granted “the professional services and economic development exemptions to the County Purchasing Act, to the extent that the bidding would be otherwise required,” and authorised the auditor to identify the 2022B Tax Note Fund — borrowed money — as the funding source, in an amount not to exceed $125,000.
On 26 November 2024 a further $25,000 was transferred into the same contract. Prestage moved, McCoy seconded, and it carried 3–2 with both Republican commissioners — Morales and Meyers — voting no.
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP collects Fort Bend County's delinquent property taxes. It has given McCoy $13,000 across eight contributions, beginning in his first primary in March 2022 and running through April 2026.
On 18 December 2025, Item 45: “Agreement for the Collection of Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes with the law firm of Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, effective through December 31, 2030.” Moved by Commissioner McCoy, seconded by Meyers, carried 5–0.
Item 33A at the same meeting is the one worth a second look. The Court voted to accept a contribution from Linebarger — $9,990 — to pay for Tyler Technology configuration “to connect the District Clerk to Linebarger's software system.” The vendor paid the county to wire the county into the vendor's software, at the meeting where the vendor's contract was extended five years. McCoy's next Linebarger check, $2,500, arrived four months later.
Mustafa Tameez, managing director of Outreach Strategists, LLC, gave McCoy $5,000 on 18 September 2022, weeks before McCoy won his seat. He reported his occupation as “Managing Director, Outreach Strategists.”
On 9 April 2024 the county's transit marketing contract came up as Item 31M and was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. Prestage moved to negotiate with Outreach Strategists as “most highly qualified respondent”; McCoy seconded. It carried 3–2, with Morales and Meyers voting no. Without the second it does not reach a vote.
The county ceased negotiations with the firm on 12 November 2024 and moved to the runner-up. No contract was signed.
Texas bars a candidate from converting political contributions to personal use, and the standard is permissive. These are the items in McCoy's own expenditure schedules, carrying his own descriptions, that a reporter is most likely to ask about. Every figure comes from a filing he signed.
| Payee | Total | Payments | His own description | Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houston Police Credit Union | $13,694.76 | 12 | “Campaign vehicle” | Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 |
| BreakingBounds, LLC | $10,000 | 4 | “Executive coaching” | Dec 2024 – Oct 2025 |
| Democratic Party of the Northern Mariana Islands | $9,000 | 1 | “DNC Convention credentials” | Aug 2024 |
| American Leadership Forum | $4,000 | 3 | Fees | Nov 2024 – Sep 2025 |
The vehicle is the one with a live rule attached. The Texas Ethics Commission permits buying a car with political funds, but where a car serves both political and personal purposes the share paid from contributions may not exceed the share it is driven for political reasons. The filings disclose no such allocation. The campaign also pays the insurance on it — sixteen State Farm payments totalling $992.68.
The smaller items round out the picture: $917.08 at Seattle Coffee Gear booked as office overhead, $603 at Board & Brush and $468 at Painting with a Twist for team outings, $274.36 at The Escape Game, and $70 to IdentoGO for TSA PreCheck.
McCoy was KP George's chief of staff in 2021. George was convicted of two counts of felony money laundering in March 2026 and suspended from the office of County Judge that April. The connection between the two men that survives in documents is not the job title, which McCoy's campaign biography no longer mentions. It is the money.
Ninety donors appear in both men's campaign finance filings. They gave George $168,713 across 143 reported contributions beginning in July 2021, and they have given McCoy $525,497 — 22.3 percent of everything McCoy has raised. Twenty-one of them account for $417,425 of it.
| Donor | Firm | To McCoy | To KP George | First gave George |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bobby Singh | Isani Consultants, LP | $35,500 | $10,000 | 18 Nov 2021 |
| Lina Sabouni | Autoarch Architects | $35,000 | $1,000 | 15 Sep 2022 |
| Kevin Matocha | Stonehenge Holdings | $29,000 | $1,000 | 13 Oct 2022 |
| Andrew Schatte | America's Holdings | $28,000 | $5,000 | 1 Apr 2022 |
| Ranney McDonough | McDonough Engineering | $26,600 | $1,000 | 9 Dec 2022 |
| Jeff Cannon | LJA Engineering | $25,000 | $1,500 | 16 Nov 2021 |
| Frank Mbachu | FCM Engineers, PC | $21,500 | $500 | 1 Nov 2022 |
| Costas Georghiou | PGAL, Inc. | $21,000 | $1,500 | 7 Apr 2022 |
| Jubair Hossain | HTS, Inc. Consultants | $21,000 | $2,500 | 14 Dec 2022 |
| Priti Singh | Associated Testing Laboratories | $21,000 | $3,500 | 8 Nov 2022 |
| Bonnie Moss | MBCO Engineering | $20,275 | $500 | 9 Jun 2022 |
| Daniel Signorelli | The Signorelli Company | $15,500 | $24,500 | 10 Sep 2021 |
| Fakhruddin Sabir | FS Group Architects | $3,500 | $5,000 | 5 Nov 2021 |
| Mustafa Tameez | Outreach Strategists | $5,000 | $1,000 | 17 Sep 2021 |
Eight of the people named elsewhere on this page are in that list — Matocha, Sabouni, Schatte, Tameez, Sabir, Cannon, Bobby Singh and Signorelli. Four of them carry a finding of their own. Matocha, whose firm took the $3.8 million in no-bid agreements and advances in finding 7. Sabouni, the board appointee whose firm holds $894,940 in county design work in finding 6. Tameez, whose firm needed McCoy's deciding second in finding 16. Sabir, whose firm took the $1,428,000 IT Facility contract. Each of them funded the county judge before they funded the commissioner.
On 28 July 2026, Katy Christian Magazine published an article reporting a sworn complaint prepared for the Texas Ethics Commission alleging seven counts of campaign finance violations by McCoy. The magazine emailed him a detailed list of questions and offered him the chance to respond. He had not responded by publication.
Twenty-three days later, on 20 August 2026, McCoy filed seven Correction/Amendment Affidavits with the Fort Bend County Clerk. They rewrite reports covering 1 July 2024 through 30 June 2026 — two years of reporting, two offices, seven filings, one day, roughly ten weeks before the November election. Each carries the sworn line: “I swear, or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that this corrected report is true and correct.”
This page now holds the complaint document itself — the pleading, its statement of facts, its index of authorities and its third-party exhibits, with a Bates range running MCCOY 000001 to MCCOY 000765. The counts below are quoted from that document rather than from the magazine's account of it. Its limits are set out at the bottom of this finding, and they matter.
| Count | What the complaint alleges | Answered by a 20 Aug correction? |
|---|---|---|
| I | Six contributions totalling $9,500 from four federally registered out-of-state committees — Woolpert, Michael Baker International, AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings and HNTB Holdings — each reported “with the Schedule A1 ‘out-of-state PAC’ box unchecked and the adjacent federal PAC identification line blank,” across five reports and twenty months. The complaint notes he completed the same disclosure correctly six times for other committees. | Yes — six corrections add the out-of-state box and the FEC number for those same four committees |
| II | Nine expenditures for travel outside Texas — Washington, Chicago, Oakland, Atlanta and Montgomery, Alabama — reported on Schedule F1 with the travel box unchecked and appearing on no Schedule T. Two of the seven reports “contain no Schedule T at all.” | No |
| III | Twenty-one itemized expenditures “together exceeding $285,000.00” carrying purpose descriptions that “name at most a category, a medium, or a bare noun.” Includes $40,000 to a committee at McCoy's own post office box described in its entirety as “Donation,” ten payments described only as “Consulting fee,” and one description that stops mid-phrase — “Event sponsorship and expenses for the Africa.” | Yes — six corrections state they were “amended to more fully describe the purpose of political expenditures” |
| IV | Expenditures booked to categories that do not cover what was bought: $41,610 of polling and $19,800 of media production under “Consulting Expense”; $9,076 of canvassing under “Office Overhead/Rental Expense.” The complaint notes the same vendor's fundraising work was booked correctly twenty-four days later. | Yes — the same six, “including appropriately identifying the category of expenditures” |
| V | “$229,138.76 cannot be traced through four consecutive transitions between his sworn closing balances,” plus $1,238.52 of unitemized spending left out of five reports' totals. | Partly — see below |
| VI | The 30-day pre-election report for the contested March 2026 primary was filed under report type “January 15,” with the result that the county's public index “contains no 30-day report for the 03/03/2026 primary election.” | Yes — “Amended Report type: 30th day before election” |
| VII | $10,000 in payments described “Executive coaching,” and $12,553.53 in eleven identical monthly payments of $1,141.23 to a credit union described only “Campaign vehicle,” with Schedule G — expenditures from personal funds — sworn at $0.00 on all seven reports. | No |
Two of the unanswered counts overlap findings already on this page, reached independently from his own filings: the $40,000 to a committee sharing his campaign's post office box is finding 4, and the coaching and vehicle payments are finding 17.
Count V is the one count that can be settled with arithmetic alone, from cover sheets, with no judgment call about what a description should have said. It was recomputed here from McCoy's own sworn cover-sheet figures, and the complaint's arithmetic is correct to the cent. Carry each closing balance forward, add that period's monetary contributions and Schedule K credits, subtract that period's political expenditures, and compare to what the next report swears. Four of the six transitions land outside the tolerance the Election Code allows.
| Transition | Gap, as originally filed | Gap, after the 20 Aug corrections |
|---|---|---|
| Jul–Dec 2024 → Jan–Jun 2025 | $205,682.79 | $6,005.79 |
| Jul–Dec 2025 → 30-day | $4,062.95 | $4,360.45 |
| 8-day → Runoff | $7,933.73 | $7,716.28 |
| Runoff → Jul 2026 | $11,459.29 | $11,459.29 |
| Total outside tolerance | $229,138.76 | $29,541.81 |
Two further transitions fall inside the tolerance both before and after, and are not counted either way.
The single largest change the corrections made is the one Count V predicted. The complaint argues that the $205,682.79 gap is not missing money but an understatement: carry the previous report forward and McCoy's July–December 2024 closing balance should have been about $580,000, not the $377,877.79 he swore — understated, it says, “by approximately $202,000.00.” On 20 August, that figure was corrected to $577,877.79 — a $200,000 increase, on a report two years old, sworn again under penalty of perjury. It brings that report within tolerance of its predecessor.
The corrections also implement Count V's second allegation exactly. The complaint identified $1,238.52 of unitemized spending that five reports left out of their cover-sheet totals — $590.60, $323.00, $100.00, $7.47 and $217.45. Each of those five reports was corrected on 20 August by adding back precisely that amount, and no other report was corrected that way.
What remains is $29,541.81 that still does not reconcile across four transitions after the corrections — each gap still above the $2,500 ceiling the rule allows.
Two things in it were checked here and did not survive the check. The complaint says the ten payments described only as “Consulting fee” total $69,300.00; the ten amounts it enumerates on its own page add to $64,300.00. The $5,000 difference is an arithmetic error in the complaint, and it is repeated in the cover letter. Separately, its Exhibit L — the county filing index it relies on for Count VI — is marked in the document as “to be supplied; Bates range reserved,” and is not present. That is the one allegation the complaint itself pleads on information and belief.
Nothing else checked here failed. The unitemized figures, the cover-sheet totals, the Schedule K credits, the closing balances and every transition in Count V match McCoy's filings exactly.
All seven correction affidavits were sworn on 20 August 2026 before a Texas notary whose seal reads James Cardona, commission expiring 12 April 2028. McCoy's original reports were notarized by a different notary. A James Cardona of Houston is also the campaign's most-paid recipient of the payments Count III complains about — the complaint enumerates ten “Consulting fee” entries, six of them to Cardona — and is the sole consulting payee of Fort Bend First PAC, the committee at McCoy's own post office box in finding 4. This page notes the name and does not establish that they are the same person, and nothing about it appears to be unlawful: Texas bars a notary from taking an oath on an instrument in which the notary is a party or has a beneficial interest, and a campaign finance report is neither.
Three limits on the complaint. The copy held here carries no complainant name, no signature and no verification — the signature block reads only “Respectfully submitted, Complainant” — so who prepared it is unknown. That is a limit on this copy; it does not establish anything about any other. It is described as prepared for the Texas Ethics Commission. And its own exhibit volume is incomplete on its face — Exhibit L is marked “to be supplied.” Nothing here should be read as a finding by the TEC, which has made none. The counts are allegations. The corrections, the cover-sheet figures and the arithmetic are not.
Whether it was filed cannot be checked from the outside, by anyone. Texas law makes a sworn complaint to the Ethics Commission confidential: “a sworn complaint, and documents and any additional evidence relating to the processing, preliminary review, preliminary review hearing, or resolution of a sworn complaint… are confidential and may not be disclosed,” and disclosure by a Commission employee is a criminal offense. Only a final order finding a violation that is more than technical or de minimis becomes public. So the absence of a public record is what a filed complaint and an unfiled one look like alike, and this page draws no inference from it either way. There is one person who does know: if the Commission accepts a sworn complaint it sends the respondent written notice with a copy of the complaint enclosed, and the respondent has 25 business days to answer. Whether McCoy received such a letter is a question he can answer and no one else can.
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.
It counts new agreement values plus amendment increases, from 297 sets of approved Commissioners Court minutes covering McCoy's tenure, January 2023 to August 2026. A contract awarded before he took office is not in it. That omission is real and it is large, and rather than estimate around it this page names the biggest instance outright.
The EpiCenter agreement, verified and excluded. On 26 July 2022, Item 32M, the Court approved an Asset Management Agreement with “Stonehenge Asset Management, LLC,” pursuant to RFQ 22-071, at $25,545,115 — corrected inside the same item to read “Stonehenge Holding Asset Management, LLC” at $26,782,115, running ten years to 25 July 2032. That is quoted from the minutes. It is not in the $50.5 million, because McCoy was not on the Commissioners Court in July 2022 — the Precinct 4 seat was held by Commissioner DeMerchant, and the roll call on Item 32M names her. Folding a pre-tenure authorization into a figure introduced as “the Court he sits on” would make that sentence false.
A larger figure was tested and is not used. A set of per-firm totals summing to $119,251,839 was put to this dataset and did not survive audit. It was said to strip out double-counted amendment chains for three firms, but no such double-counting exists in this dataset: of every amendment item here that prints both an increase and a restated total, 90 of 90 were captured as the increase. Its grouping rule also merged separate contracts — STOA Architects holds two, the East Fort Bend Assembly Center at $395,500 grown to $613,944.25 and a Juvenile Detention Vocational Center contract at $199,830 on ARPA money, and the revision kept the first and dropped the second. And its record stopped on 28 May 2026, three months short of this one, leaving out $4,210,364 of later authorizations to the same firms. The figure may well be closer to the truth than $50.5 million. It is not used here because it could not be reproduced from documents.
It answers a narrower question than the contract total and the two are not comparable. The contract figure is the value of the contracts; the $34.7 million is the value of the items McCoy personally moved or seconded. An amendment adding $144,000 to an $881,500 contract counts as $144,000 there, because $144,000 is what the motion he made was worth.
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.
523 sets of approved Commissioners Court, Drainage District and Public Facility Corporation minutes, 10 November 2020 to 28 May 2026, carrying 21,104 recorded actions, searched for every donor-affiliated firm.
"Authorized" is not "paid." Every contract figure on this page is an amount the Court voted to authorize. Fort Bend County publishes no check register, so what was actually paid cannot be established from public sources, and nothing here should be read as money received.
Actions are grouped into contract threads by the county's own solicitation number (RFP, RFQ, Bid, IFB or CSP nn-nnnn) where one is printed. Within a thread the figure is the highest restated total plus only those increments that postdate it. “Correction to funding source” and “previously approved” re-approval items are dropped. Invoice and pay-application items are excluded from authorizations entirely. Where no solicitation number is printed, actions are clustered on subject words and split only where a restatement chain would have to run downward — a rule deliberately biased toward undercounting.
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.
Finding 19 rests on the seven Correction/Amendment Affidavits themselves, downloaded from the Fort Bend County campaign finance portal. Every reason quoted there is transcribed from box 6, “Explanation of Correction,” on the face of each affidavit — not inferred from comparing versions.
The before-and-after comparison is reported only for the two reports where this page holds both the original and the corrected filing: the Commissioner Precinct 4 reports for July–December 2024 and January–June 2025. On both, the contribution schedules are identical to the cent. The five County Judge corrections are not compared that way, because their originals were filed after this page's contribution dataset was extracted from the corrected versions. Their stated reasons are quoted; their contribution schedules are not claimed to be unchanged.
The allegations finding 19 sets beside those corrections are quoted from the complaint document itself, which this page now holds: the pleading, its statement of facts, its listing of documents, its index of authorities and its third-party exhibits, Bates-stamped MCCOY 000001–000765. Where the finding puts an allegation in quotation marks, the words are the complaint's. Katy Christian Magazine's 28 July 2026 article is cited only for the date on which the allegations became public and for the fact that McCoy was given questions and did not answer them.
Count V was recomputed here rather than repeated. Every input is a cover-sheet figure from McCoy's own filings — total monetary political contributions, total political expenditures, Schedule K credits, and total political contributions maintained — for both the original and the corrected version of each report. Non-monetary in-kind contributions are excluded from the cash chain, because they never enter the account; the two reports whose cover-sheet contribution box includes in-kind are net of Schedule A2. The tolerance applied is the one the rule sets: $250, or the lesser of ten percent of the amount disclosed and $2,500 — which on every report at issue is $2,500. All fourteen cover sheets were read from the filings; the $577,877.79 corrected closing balance and the $264,463.76 corrected expenditure total were additionally verified against the page images, because both are load-bearing.
The complaint was audited, not assumed. Two defects found in it are reported in finding 19: a $5,000 arithmetic error in the “Consulting fee” total, and a missing Exhibit L. Its remaining figures reconcile to McCoy's filings to the cent. This page treats the counts as alleged, notes that the copy held here carries no complainant name, signature or verification, does not identify who prepared it, and does not represent that the complaint was filed with, docketed by, or acted on by the Commission. Nor does it represent the opposite: under Gov't Code § 571.140 a sworn complaint and everything relating to its processing are confidential, and only a final order finding a more-than-technical violation is public, so no public record could confirm or refute filing at this stage.
Finding 18 rests on KP George's own campaign finance reports, thirteen filings covering 2022 through 2025, obtained from the same Fort Bend County portal as McCoy's. They were parsed the same way and held to the same test: the contributions extracted from a report have to equal the total that report's own cover sheet states. Every one of George's readable reports that states a Schedule A1 total reconciles to the cent — $50,770, $132,656, $110,902, $121,635 and $103,611. Together his readable filings give 790 contributions totalling $631,908.
The half that cannot be read. George's five reports from 2024 and 2025 were completed by hand. Optical character recognition returns nothing usable from handwriting: on a 300 dpi pass, an address reads back as “Ui27 AmberTrace CH Sogeclond TX 17479” and a dollar amount as “P / O i 0d”. Those reports are excluded rather than guessed at, which is why finding 18 is stated as a floor. Reading them would take a person typing them in, not a machine.
Each of the ninety shared donors was then confirmed individually: the name has to appear on a dated Schedule A1 line in George's filings, matched on the whole name in either order, since his filings list contributors surname-first and McCoy's do not. All ninety were confirmed; none were accepted on a partial or fuzzy match.
The contract dataset behind the money map was assembled by searching the minutes for donor-affiliated firm names. That method cannot surface an item involving a firm that never gave McCoy money, or a vote that is not about a contract at all — his own salary, for instance.
Findings 11 through 17 come from reading the named meetings directly. Each one cites the meeting date and the agenda item number, and every quotation is verbatim from the approved minutes of that meeting, which are public at the agenda portal linked below. Where the figure a reader would most want is carried in an attachment rather than in the text of the minutes — the salary schedules are the case — the finding says so rather than substituting a number from somewhere else.
Contribution and expenditure figures in those findings come from the same reconciled extraction as the rest of the page, which is why several of them are larger than the totals circulating elsewhere: they include every reported payment in the period rather than a sample.