If you look at the Transparency USA website, Rafter D made a contribution to the Political Action Committee called Partners for a Better Bryan. Gutierrez is the treasurer. It shows Gutierrez made a large contribution to his own campaign. Is that even allowed? Can the treasurer of a PAC donate to his own political campaign?

Partners for a Better Bryan
https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/partners-for-a-better-bryan-political-action-committee-70166-gpac (https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/partners-for-a-better-bryan-political-action-committee-70166-gpac)

Yes, you can contribute to a PAC that sends the money back to your campaign. It would then be subject to the campaign finance laws. You can add as much money as you wish to your own campaign.

Something something "known and trusted"

EMY92 said:

---

Yes, you can contribute to a PAC that sends the money back to your campaign. It would then be subject to the campaign finance laws. You can add as much money as you wish to your own campaign.

---

You mean, you can use your own money to run for office instead of relying on donations?

Lol, of course you'd ignore how the man with a $1 dollar lease made a donation to the mayor.

scd88 said:

---

Is this the longest thread ever on this board?

---

It is getting there....

Those "known and trusted" donations sure do add up…

It's perfectly legal

laavispa said:

---

In answer to the question where does BBC get the money. According to the document you cite FNB Bryan made a loan to BBC and secured it with a lien on the 196ac. This is how the Grantor got paid

I'm not sure but $65.2K per acre does not seem out of line,[Thread derail removed. -Staff]

---

So at $12,800,000 purchase price, where did the $2,500,000 plus down payment come from ?

Or did the bank finance 100% of the purchase ?

Also where does the money come from to pay the note on the property?

A 20,000,000 year lease at $1 a year ?


On tax roles for around ~$6,000,000 if recall, can anyone point me to other properties on bcad that are sold for 100%+ over bcad numbers ? Ive seen 30-40% but never 100.

Charpie said:

---

It's perfectly legal

---

Guy saved $19,499 in grazing leases over 10 years with a $500 donation.

In addition to the Rafter D donation, there's also a donation to the Partners for a Better Bryan PAC from Jose Augusto. It shows he is the owner of Magic Developments. Since Gutierrez is the treasurer of the PAC, why would the mayor leave off this man's last name? His name is Jose Augusto Schincariol, a Brazilian. You can find him online. He's also the owner of Base Armalite among other things. I noticed that the mayor even follows him on Instagram. Why would a citizen of Brazil have any interest in making a (very large) donation to a PAC in Bryan, Texas? (Which would then be used by the mayor/treasurer to help fund his own campaign.) Can a non-US citizen donate to a PAC in the United States? Is that allowed?

https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/partners-for-a-better-bryan-political-action-committee-70166-gpac

These embryos were to be sold to brazilians

That's literally why PACs exist, y'all.

The shady part is how did Rafter D come to be the one who was offered the lease and, more importantly in my mind, why didn't the mayor disclose to the BBC his ongoing business relationship with them?

Does it matter? It's legal.


/sarcasm of course


You and I both know why they are doing the things that they are doing.

How many people does it take to corrupt a mayor?
One brazilian.

trouble said:

---

That's literally why PACs exist, y'all.

The shady part is how did Rafter D come to be the one who was offered the lease and, more importantly in my mind, why didn't the mayor disclose to the BBC his ongoing business relationship with them?

---

That info was very likely known, but to make it look "less who you know", leasing to Rafter D, versus Gutierrez, was the preferred route. The longhorns are still onsite (benefitting the mayor), but as the property is overgrazed, Rafter D is in violation of the lease agreement.

From the lease:
"The permitted use of Landlord's property is for grazing of cattle, growing hay, maintaining native pastureland, or other generally accepted agricultural purposes. At no time may a greater number of cattle be placed on property than is consistent with first class husbandry and conservation practice."

At least one BBC member started they knew nothing of the business relationship between Rafter D and La Pistola

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Wow, unreal

---

So, was Dorn "known and trusted" or just a guy who made donations to the right PAC of the inside crew of politicians? There's something that bears some more scrutiny. I'm sure it's all perfectly legal…

Hornbeck said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Wow, unreal

---

So, was Dorn "known and trusted" or just a guy who made donations to the right PAC of the inside crew of politicians? There's something that bears some more scrutiny. I'm sure it's all perfectly legal…

---

Honestly it's probably all perfectly legal, just not a good look at all.

After a long run it is looking like this thread is starting to have engine trouble.

Might have to make an emergency landing before all the energy is expended.

if the local media would actually put pressure and ask questions, maybe it wouldn't run out of steam.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

if the local media would actually put pressure and ask questions, maybe it wouldn't run out of steam.

---

Media, gutless, in this day and age? Who would've thought? Sadly it falls upon the average person to conduct journalism these days.

Can any of these interested individuals on this thread go to a Bryan city council meeting and ask the question or at least get the question(s) in the record? This is good and all but it is clear that the parties addressed here are satisfied to just stay silent and wait for everything to blow over.

Marooned_n_Aggieland said:

---

Can any of these interested individuals on this thread go to a Bryan city council meeting and ask the question or at least get the question(s) in the record? This is good and all but it is clear that the parties addressed here are satisfied to just stay silent and wait for everything to blow over.

---

You can only speak to items on the agenda. They made this clear when the situation became public.