Texas Democrat James Talarico Holding Campaign Event in Los Angeles
“Tickets for the event start at $500 and go as high as $13,500”
James Talarico, the Democrat running for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, is planning a campaign event this week in Los Angeles, California, for some reason. Fellow Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia will join him.
One has to assume that this is mostly about fundraising. Talarico and Ossoff must be eager to see their well-off supporters in Hollywood.
Either way, it’s not a good look.
FOX News reports:
Texas Dem candidate to hold high-dollar Hollywood fundraiser while GOP gathers in Dallas: ‘Fake cowboy’
Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico is set to travel to Los Angeles in September for a high-dollar fundraiser with Hollywood celebrities, according to a report.
Politico reported that “Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof and his wife, Heidi, will host a fundraiser for Talarico in Brentwood on Sept. 10. Tickets for the event start at $500 and go as high as $13,500, according to the outlet. This will be Talarico’s second Hollywood fundraiser in a few months. The first was held in June and was described by Page Six Hollywood as a “glitzy Dem fundraiser” at the home of Hollywood producer Peter Chernin. Fox News Digital reached out to the Lindelofs and Chernin for comment.
Meanwhile, Talarico’s opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, will gather in Dallas for the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention, along with President Donald Trump and other Republicans. The same night Republicans rally in Dallas, former President Barack Obama will headline a Democratic House fundraiser in New York, according to The New York Times. The events put prominent Democrats on the coasts while Republicans gather in Texas.
Fox News Digital previously reported that donors from outside Texas accounted for roughly 50% of the funds raised by Talarico, according to first-quarter campaign finance records.
Talarico is taking heat from Republicans for his out-of-state fundraising. RNC spokesperson Zach Kraft told Fox News Digital that “it is no surprise that James Talarico feels more comfortable in crazy liberal California than when his handlers force him to wear a fake cowboy hat and rent a pickup truck to pretend to be a ‘real’ Texan.”
This is just perfect for Talarico.
NEW —
Jon Ossoff and James Talarico are doing a finance event called "Two Visionaries, One Night" in Los Angeles on Thursday night.
Fundraiser is hosted by Shonda Rhimes + others.https://t.co/4SVTD2zqE2 pic.twitter.com/yXVntGMyte
— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) September 5, 2026
Talarico doing a fundraiser among his grassroots supporters – Hollywood millionaires
Just perfect https://t.co/3MYZcO5laV
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) September 5, 2026
It’s probably safe to assume that Talarico won’t spend the night lecturing his Hollywood friends about how to be a proper Christian, as he seems so fond of doing.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And this is why I would ban Congressional wannabies from raising money out of state. You want to be a rep from Texas, raise your money in Texas from the district you want to represent. All your money,
Agreed –
I live in a district that voted nearly 80% for Ronald Reagan. It is now voting nearly 80% for kamela harris
100%…no more PAC money outside of the state, local elections is where all the grift starts then ripples out from there until no one knows where any of the money is coming from, including our enemies.
Thing is, the Democrats, including DSA lunatics, aren’t hiding it and their agenda any ore…they don’t care.
That is unconstitutional, and worse it’s a denial of the fundamental human right to free speech that would exist with or without constitutional protection. People anywhere in the world have the right to do whatever they can to persuade TX voters to vote the way they want them to.
Suppose you’re a rich person who is worried that Congress will pass a law that is bad for you, e.g. it will ban your industry, or it will ban something that’s an important part of your lifestyle. Or you simply support a cause and want Congress to advance that cause. Your personal vote only gets you so far, so you do more than that by finding candidates who support your cause and persuading people to elect them. What could be more natural or more fundamental than your right to do this? And why is it OK to do that for candidates in your district, or in your state, but not in other districts or states? What is the difference?
Also, unless you impose the exact same restriction on people who volunteer in person, you’re actively helping the left and shackling the right, because they have a lot more volunteers available to them with spare time, while we have more donors available with spare money.
Fair enough.
Suppose you’re a poor person and you’re worried Congress might pass a law against your interests and you don’t have any funds to donate and already work two full time jobs at minimum wage to make ends meet and can’t even volunteer for your CD constant mush less one across your State or out of State..
Explain to that guy why it is desirable for some wealth person in another State to send $ to another State/CD to influence the election of candidates for offices for which he isn’t entitled to vote. No academic arguments or Con Law sophistry please Just using plain language sell that guy on the desirability of a situation in which this guy’s own Rep/Senator may feel more beholden to out of State donors than his own constituents.
Rich people are morally entitled to enjoy things that poor people can’t afford. Rich people can live in nicer houses, drive nicer cars, buy better quality goods and services of all kinds, and have a louder voice in reaching people and trying to influence them. That’s what freedom is. They made their wealth, and have the right to spend it.
So they can not only stand on a street corner with a bullhorn, they can hire hundreds of people to do the same, they can print leaflets for those hundreds of people to distribute, they can buy ads that will reach people, etc., and that is right and proper. Poor people are free to do what they can, not only in their own district but anywhere they lie, they just can’t do as much because they didn’t create as much wealth.
Milhouse,
Pretty sure that’s not gonna convince our hypothetical poor man. Though the faux libertarians will back it to the hilt.
Let’s accept everything you argued as true, right and proper. You’ve explicitly excluded inherited wealth b/c through your linguistic choices you’ve limited it those who’ve ‘made/created’ the wealth. You offered no limiting principle on the freedom to act using tools at hand. Money is definitely a tool, a very useful one. You’ve called for use of this tool in an unfettered manner.
Further what does ‘made/created’ truly mean? Is it restricted to lawful means? You didn’t specify. How about morality? Does your argument exclude wealth unlawfully earned or earned via immoral actions like bid rigging or influence of past politicians/regulatory bodies to provide unfair advantage?
Freedom also include natural limits,.generally the limit is where another’s rights begin. It seems as if out of district and out of State individuals interfering in the electoral process of someone else’s district/State could be accurately described as a form of trespass/encroachment.
Your argument rests on the moral underpinning of freedom but doesn’t exclude immoral much less illegal means used to ‘make/create’ the necessary wealth. Would it be ok for a poor individual to use the means he has to hand to shape electoral fortunes of a candidate say with a hunting rifle? Since we’ve excluded any legal/moral constraints other than unfettered ‘freedom’ to use tools at hand to achieve a particular political goal desired by that individual why not?
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread” – Anatole France
Inherited wealth rests on the same moral basis as earned wealth, because it was created and thus earned, by the person who bequeathed it to its current owner. Wealth is not really yours if you can’t give it to whomever you like. And if you can’t leave your wealth to your chosen heirs then what’s the point of creating it in the first place? Once someone is set for life, why would they keep creating wealth if it’s just going to be taken from them when they die?
And screw Anatole France. Capitalism is morality. It is inherently right and just, and interfering with it is inherently wrong.
Milhouse,
Again you make sweeping declarations but offer zero limiting principles.
If wealth from whatever source and its use should be unconstrained including attempts at influencing potential voters and achieving their own political/policy agenda as you advocated…then fine. BUT No whining when folks use that wealth in ways you find objectionable …like bribery or assassination or intentionally creating a power outage on election day or paying mail carries to discard mailed ballots or any number of immoral and potentially unlawful actions.
Unrestrained anything is almost always a bad idea. Without offering a limiting principle you’ve unleashed an unrestrained and unfettered process.
FWIW I don’t think inherited wealth is bad heck I don’t think it should be taxed more than say 10% on current value and that’s kinda pushing it. As for income tax/cap.gains lets have a flat tax at 18% which is just about the share of GDP the Feds raise annually.
Does that include Canada’s deliberate attempts to influence the midterm elections?
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/09/06/can-you-guess-which-country-just-admitted-to-interfering-in-our-midterm-elections-n4956954
Of course it does; the entire world is affected by the outcome of US elections, so it follows that every human being has the fundamental Creator-given right to do whatever they can to influence US voters. And it’s not as if either the US government or Americans in general have every had any qualms about trying to influence foreign voters.
Now since the US constitution doesn’t protect foreigners who are not physically present in the USA, US law can get away with banning campaign contributions from foreigners. But that doesn’t make it right.
Whatever happened to local voters having a say when ‘anyone in the world’ can affect elections?
Not buying it, too much of a slippery slope that allows (has allowed) all manner of exterior influence…because in todays world one allowance begets another and pretty soon Joe from Ardmore no longer has a say in who his mayor is because of the lie peddlers with money from…oh…let’s just say…China.
Local voters are the only ones who have a say. No one else has any say at all; all they can do is try to reach out to those local voters and try to persuade them, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll succeed. And the right to make that attempt, to the best of their ability, is a fundamental human right. It’s pure speech, and it’s precisely what the first amendment is for.
That’s why the Supreme Court has ruled over and over and over that while the government may limit who may give money directly to a candidate’s actual official campaign, and how much they may give, no limits can be placed on people’s attempts to persuade voters without going through a candidate’s campaign.
Pretty sure Tina Peters would have some perspective on ‘local’ elections being fraudulent while Griswold and her cronies were fixing Colorado elections. Griswold told Peters, an election official, to destroy election data, which was against state election law. When Peters didn’t they lowered the boom. Woman is a hero, yet paid the price for ‘outside money influence peddlers’. I was there.
Knew you were going to pipe in and say that. I have no problem with any interest group running political ads on topics. The difference is giving money directly to candidates. No just no. You don’t get to buy influence that way. Sorry. If that takes a law in each state to forbid it then I’m fine with that.
Giving directly to candidates is also a right. Congress may limit how much an individual may give, but it can’t set that limit at zero. And it can’t discriminate between people who live in the district and those who don’t; the constitution protects both their rights equally.
The states should have the power as I said above.
The first amendment binds the states as much as it does Congress, via the 14th amendment. What you’re proposing is censorship, which is tyranny and fundamentally anti-American.
Puhleeeze there has always been censorship in this country and by the government too.
Of course it’s legal. However if I know that a candidate owes more allegiance to outside groups who finance that he owes to his constituency then I will take that into account when I vote.
Well, what you know doesn’t imply anything about what other people voting for him know — or don’t know, which is more likely the case.
If you want them to know, tell them. Raise money, from anyone who is willing to give it, and inform the voters of this fact.
I don’t have a problem with him fundraising in California as long as people know that is where his money is coming from. I don’t think anyone running for office should be able to use any money that the voting public cannot see where it is coming from. I do think it is a bit hypocritical for all his supporters to yell that Elon Musk donating to Paxton is buying the election when 2/3 of Musks businesses are headquartered in Texas now and their guy is out in California raising money from people who don’t give two sh**s about Texas except trying to turn it Blue.
Talarico: My god spoke to me and said, “Campaign in Los Angeles. It’s one of the most important cities in Texas.”
Talarico’s real goal is to get the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist Californians to move to Texas and pollute/dilute the Real Texan voters.
Money is not his problem. Talarico is in Soros’s back pocket to be let out on a leash like a pet to do Soros’s bidding which is to ruin America.
Talarico also took money from Epstein cronies. Birds of a feather…
Even Crockett called Talarico out on this. Talarico kept the money.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/texas-senate-race-crockett-hits-172009659.html
Looks like a ‘Boy Scout, smarmy talker….but listen very closely, he is very dangerous and operates from Satan’s bench.
He gives me the creeps.
Yup…when the ‘Spidey-Sense’ is telling you something, believe it.
Well to be honest, his money is from out of state, his most vocal supporters are from out of state, and I suspect his primary voters are from out of state, Even the usually democrat refuse that would engineer fake ballots from him are probably from out of state. He really has no real relationship with Texas. Why would he go there?
You misspelled illegal alien voters./S
There’s more than few leftist wokiestas in TX. Austin is chock full. El Paso too. Probably same for DFW and Houston.
Fair points but I contend that the big democrat crime bosses pulling their strings are still from out of state.
Some sure probably. Having spent a decade in TX I’d argue its the go along/get along/don’t rock the boat establishment GoP types that are the true problem. Not just in TX but in Red States across the board. Look at GA and their struggles to clean up the voter registration lists or even get a handle on just WTF is going on in Fulton/Cobb County elections year after year despite a GoP Gov and Sec State and legislature. I suspect there’s voter registration list problems in many counties in Red States that are ‘known’ in the sense that the officials understand vulnerabilities exist now, have existed for a long time and nobody wants to be the person without a chair when the music stops so everyone just pretends not to know. Kinda like if someone knows there’s a leak in their roof but refuses to go inspect the attic b/c then they’d have actual knowledge of how bad the damage truly is.
For another variant consider ‘school choice’ the real kind with vouchers that follow the Student even to a homeschool if they what the Parents decide. Lots of opposition from what should be strong supporters. Yet ….not so much. Why? At a macro level it rocks the boat, up ends past back scratching deals and favor trading. Then there’s the personal level micro level. The local Attorney/small businesses owner/farmer in many smaller rural communities is married to a teacher. Less money to the schools from lower enrollment and their spouse might lose their job and very importantly their health IN plan which they put their family onto b/c its far less costly and has better benefits than they could otherwise afford.
“Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof and his wife, Heidi, will host a fundraiser for Talarico”
Finally, an explanation for the schizophrenic ending of “Lost” that I can believe: it probably made perfect sense to Lindelof!
Tallerico and Ossoff campaign in Los Angeles County, their true constituency.
Cool show, intriguing….went off the rails at the end. Was that his idea of Catholic Purgatory?
It was what happens when writers throw in shock takes just to be cool, but haven’t put in the initial work to establish an underlying mythology that they all need to be consistent with. Otherwise known as getting so far out ahead of your skis that you no longer know what direction the chalet is in. More like viewer purgatory.
It’s so galling to see arrogant and elitist Hollywood Dhimmi-crats try to influence races outside of Commiefornia. It’s bad enough that these idiots have destroyed their own state, but they seek to destroy successful and prosperous states, too.
That is the goal.
When Sandy Cortez from Yorktown was initially running the DSA lunatics came right out and said she was the start of their intended take-over of government. (I swore they were feeding her lines) Now look…inch-by-inch, and WTP have little say in stopping The Subversive Borg that assimilates all in its path, like a locust storm.
All I know is that Talarico keeps popping up on my YouTube feed, begging me for just $5, or even just $1. And I can’t block him.
I get crap like that all the time. All you are allowed to do is block a specific ad.
I keep getting text messages on my phone from the Paxton campaign asking for $20. I will vote for him but I will not give him money. He backs some good legislation and filed some really good federal cases but he has always been more interested in vacations than campaigning and I really think the Republican Party could have found someone better. The primary happened while his divorce and mistress were all over the headlines and he still beat Corwyn, are you really telling me another conservative without all the baggage couldn’t have done the same.
Of course you can’t. I’m sure if you think about it long enough, you could find a way to conclude that that would violate his rights — your rights be damned.
“An honest politician is one that stays bought.”
Jon Ossoff and L’il Jimmy Talarico as “Two Visionaries”? So Folie-a-Deux psychosis is now being called “Two Visionaries”? That must have been one change in DSM5 that APsychiatricA didn’t communicate in the revisions yet!