Individuals giving $500 or less supplied comparable amounts within each race. Larger checks, political committees and donated campaign services created a much wider financial divide.
Strip away political committees, businesses and larger contributors, and Bell County’s two Texas House races look considerably closer financially.
From March 4 through September 24, individuals whose total monetary giving did not exceed $500 contributed $8,524.61 to Republican Rep. Brad Buckley and $7,709.43 to Democratic challenger Dawn Richardson in House District 54.
In House District 55, the difference was smaller: $16,474.26 for Republican Rep. Hillary Hickland and $16,744.05 for Democratic challenger Amelia Rabroker.
Then add the rest of the contributions.
Buckley reported approximately $535,375 in monetary and in-kind support during the comparison period, compared with $28,826 for Richardson. Hickland reported approximately $322,933, compared with $70,056 for Rabroker.
All four campaigns attracted smaller individual contributors. The financial separation emerged above that layer, where larger checks, political committees and donated services gave the Republican incumbents substantially more resources.
The records also reveal differences within each party—and explain why a contribution list does not capture every form of political support.
How The Directory Made the Comparison
The Directory analyzed contributions dated March 4, the day after the primary, through September 24. Richardson’s October filing extended through September 30; five monetary contributions totaling $500 during those additional days were excluded to maintain a common cutoff.
Individual contributors were grouped across reports, reconciling apparent name variations using supporting information. A contributor qualified for the $500-or-less category only if their total reported monetary giving during the comparison period did not exceed $500. A separate calculation used a $200 threshold.
PACs, businesses and other organizations were excluded from those individual-donor calculations. Monetary receipts, in-kind contributions and reporting-date balances were examined separately.
These categories describe giving during the comparison period, not necessarily someone’s entire election-cycle support. They also describe contributors—not volunteers, event attendees or voters who support a candidate without writing a check.
HD-54: Similar Dollars, Different Donor Pools
Buckley and Richardson were separated by $815.18 among individuals giving $500 or less.
Buckley received $8,524.61 from 29 identifiable contributors in that category. After reconciling apparent name variations, Richardson received $7,709.43 from 121—more than four times as many contributors.
At the stricter $200 threshold:
Buckley — Nine contributors, totaling $816.41.
Richardson — 110 contributors, totaling $4,423.17.
Across all identifiable individual contributors, the median amount given during the period was approximately $1,000 for Buckley and $25 for Richardson. The reconciled analysis identified 94 individual Buckley contributors and 125 for Richardson.
But Buckley’s individual contributors supplied approximately $227,078, compared with $19,418 for Richardson. His receipts included a $25,000 contribution from Dallas donor Gideon Powell and multiple $10,000 individual contributions from Bell County communities.
Buckley’s advantage therefore cannot accurately be characterized simply as outside PAC money replacing individual support. Identifiable individuals supplied more than half of his monetary receipts during the comparison period. Their checks were substantially larger.
Buckley reported $392,728.34 in monetary contributions and $142,646.54 in in-kind support, for a combined $535,374.88. Richardson reported $25,917.56 in monetary contributions and $2,908.55 in in-kind support, totaling $28,826.11.
Buckley also reported $480,417.97 in maintained political contributions as of September 24. That is a balance at the reporting date, not simply the amount raised during this comparison.
Richardson attracted more identifiable smaller contributors. Buckley had substantially greater financial capacity. Neither finding, by itself, measures their support among voters.
HD-55: Two Smaller-Dollar Networks
Hickland and Rabroker were separated by just $269.79 among individuals giving $500 or less.
Hickland received $16,474.26 from 138 identifiable contributors. Rabroker received $16,744.05 from 185 after reconciliation of apparent name variations.
At the $200 threshold:
Hickland — 114 contributors, totaling $8,022.86.
Rabroker — 168 contributors, totaling $10,484.50.
The reconciled analysis identified 164 individual Hickland contributors overall and 192 for Rabroker. Their median giving during the period was approximately $100 and $53, respectively.
Rabroker attracted more contributors in the lowest giving ranges. Hickland nevertheless had a substantial smaller-dollar network of her own.
The campaigns diverged sharply when other support was included. Hickland reported $158,446.84 in monetary contributions, including $140 in unitemized receipts, and $164,486.62 in in-kind support. Rabroker reported $59,457.41 in monetary contributions and $10,598.09 in in-kind support.
That produced combined totals of $322,933.46 for Hickland and $70,055.50 for Rabroker—an advantage of more than four and a half to one.
Hickland reported $214,749.69 in maintained political contributions as of September 24. Rabroker reported $29,090.49.
The difference is not simply how many people contributed. It is how much money and campaign assistance each operation could draw upon.
The Same $125,152 Appears Twice
An unusually specific figure appears in both Republican incumbents’ reports.
Buckley and Hickland each reported $125,152 in in-kind canvassing from Texas Conservative Majority PAC, dated September 24.
The same organization, date and reported value.
The PAC’s July 1–September 24 report illustrates the broader operation behind that support. It reported approximately $5.69 million in monetary contributions and $4.24 million in political expenditures. On page 21, the filing lists two payments to Virginia-based Echo Canyon Consulting for “Campaign Canvassing Services”: $304,182.12 on August 10 and $533,920 on September 4.
Together, those payments total $838,102.12. They should not be interpreted as spending exclusively in Bell County or added to candidate-reported in-kind contributions as though they necessarily represented separate benefits.
The records do not explain how the identical candidate allocations were calculated, how much work occurred in each district or how many voters were contacted.
The Directory asked Texas Conservative Majority PAC to explain the program and its cost allocation. The organization did not respond by the requested deadline.
The filings establish substantial reported field support. They do not establish equivalent activity—or equivalent effectiveness—in the two districts.
Institutional Support Includes Polling
Outside organizations also supplied research.
Buckley reported $15,500 in polling from Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC. Hickland reported $15,700 in polling from Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC and another $15,700 from the Dustin Burrows campaign.
Hickland’s monetary receipts also included $25,000 from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, $25,000 from Court Reform Action for Families Texas PAC and $10,000 from Texas Conservative Majority PAC.
These contributions show how institutional support can extend beyond advertising and campaign workers. Polling may assess candidate preferences, examine issues or test messages.
The filings do not disclose the questionnaires, methodology or findings. They also do not establish whether Hickland’s two $15,700 entries represented separate projects or allocated portions of a shared research effort.
The Directory asked Hickland’s campaign about that distinction and asked Texans for Lawsuit Reform to characterize its research. Neither responded by the requested deadline.
Rabroker’s Institutional Support and Field Strategy
Rabroker’s campaign also relies on more than smaller individual checks.
Her filings identify $20,000 from the House Democratic Campaign Committee during the comparison period: $1,000 in June, $10,000 in August and $9,000 in September. Killeen Firefighters for Responsible Government contributed another $10,000 on September 17.
Together, those organizations supplied $30,000—slightly more than half of her monetary receipts.
In written answers supplied by campaign manager Brayson Cox, Rabroker’s campaign described the committee’s support as an investment in outreach and the infrastructure needed to communicate directly with voters.
The campaign also said its spending on staff and field organization was deliberate. It identified volunteer coordination, campaign operations, events and direct voter contact as purposes of that investment, while saying its spending priorities would continue to evolve to include advertising and other communication.
Those answers provide context for the expenditures. They do not establish how effectively the campaign used its resources.
The records document the investment. They do not show how many voters were persuaded.
Firefighters Backed Candidates From Both Parties
The firefighters’ financial contribution went to Rabroker. Their endorsements crossed party lines.
In a written response, Killeen Fire Fighters for Responsible Government said the Killeen Professional Fire Fighters Association also endorsed Buckley in HD-54, describing him as a “firefighter-friendly incumbent.” The response cited his continued support for the association and its legislative priorities.
The difference was financial.
“Part of our endorsement and contribution process includes evaluating campaign finances and considering the resources requested by each candidate,” the PAC wrote. “In this election, Dr. Buckley requested only our endorsement, which the KPFFA was happy to provide.”
The organization said endorsements and financial contributions are considered separately, based on campaign circumstances and requests.
That distinction matters when reading contribution reports. An organization can support a candidate without giving the campaign money.
Rabroker’s campaign also addressed a question about her husband, Timothy Rabroker, a longtime Killeen firefighter. In its written response, the campaign said he recused himself from the PAC’s endorsement and contribution decision-making.
That is the campaign’s account. The firefighter response reviewed for this article did not independently address his participation.
Democratic Committee Spending Favors HD-55
The House Democratic Campaign Committee’s records show substantially greater financial support for Rabroker than for Richardson.
Its July–September filing identifies $19,000 to Rabroker, matching the August and September contributions in her candidate report. Her earlier filing identifies another $1,000 in June.
The committee also reports a $1,000 contribution to Richardson dated September 24. The Directory did not identify a corresponding receipt in her candidate filing through September 30 and excluded it from the candidate-side calculations. The difference remains unreconciled; the records alone do not establish its cause.
The Directory asked Richardson about the committee’s reported contribution, its comparatively smaller investment in HD-54 and her campaign’s fundraising and organizational strategy. She did not respond by the requested deadline.
The committee also did not respond to questions about how it allocated resources between the two races.
Rabroker’s campaign attributed its support to confidence in the organization it is building. That is the campaign’s explanation, not the committee’s account of its decisions.
Similar Dollars, Different Machinery
Within each race, the campaigns raised comparable amounts from individuals whose monetary giving did not exceed $500 during the comparison period. Larger checks, political committees and donated services then produced sharply different financial resources.
Those records do not measure every supporter or establish how effectively a campaign spends its money. The firefighters’ response illustrates another limitation: an endorsement can exist without an accompanying contribution.
The distinction is between participation and capacity. A larger group of smaller contributors may provide valuable relationships. Larger checks and institutional services provide resources that modest contributions alone may not match.
Money does not cast the votes. But these campaigns enter the closing weeks with very different machinery for seeking them.
Methodology
The Directory calculated contribution totals from the TEC filings and transaction exports reviewed for this article, using transactions dated March 4–September 24. Figures describe those records and may be affected by subsequent corrections.
Individual monetary contributions were aggregated across the period before applying the $500 and $200 thresholds. Apparent name variations were reconciled using supporting information; counts represent reconciled donor records, not independently verified identities. Hickland’s $140 in unitemized monetary contributions is included in her overall receipts but cannot be assigned to named donors.
Maintained-contribution balances are reported separately from fundraising totals. In-kind contributions represent reported goods or services, not cash available to spend. The analysis does not treat PAC vendor payments and candidate-reported in-kind support as necessarily separate benefits.
Reporting Note
The Directory requested comment from all four campaigns, Texas Conservative Majority PAC, Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the House Democratic Campaign Committee. Rabroker’s campaign and Killeen Fire Fighters for Responsible Government provided written responses. The other campaigns and organizations did not respond by the requested deadlines.
.