I am not endorsing Steve Radack, but I have written that I do not plan to vote for Leslie Briones. In one four-year term, she has accumulated over $4 million in her campaign account. It may not be pay-to-play, but you would have to convince me that it ain’t so.
I can’t prove it’s pay-to-play, but people give money for a reason; if nothing else, they get the officeholder’s ear. Our country has too much corruption, and even the appearance is not good. There is no wonder that people think both parties are corrupt.
Harris County Commissioner Lesley Briones has a campaign balance of approximately $4 million, according to financial disclosure data from mid-2026. [1]
Key details of her campaign finance profile heading into her 2026 reelection bid include: [1, 2]
- Total Balance: Her campaign chest finished the mid-2026 reporting cycle at around $4 million, up from $3 million in cash on hand earlier in her reelection push. [1, 2]
- Recent Fundraising: She raised $1,303,507 over a key six-month tracking period leading up to July 2026. [1]
- Donor Profile: Reports from the Houston Chronicle highlight that roughly 60% of her high-dollar donations came from county contractors, drawing public scrutiny from transparency advocates. Briones’ campaign has maintained that donations are completely separate from precinct operations and do not influence the local contracting process. [1]
The Chronicle’s endorsements should be taken with a grain of salt
The Houston Chronicle has every right to endorse Lesley Briones and reject Steve Radack. But readers have every right to remember what the newspaper said before. An endorsement is an opinion, and the institution issuing it should be willing to have its own judgment examined.
In its October 9 endorsement of Briones, the editorial board portrays Radack as outdated, short on specifics, and disconnected from modern Harris County. It also faults the former Republican-majority Commissioners Court for favoring development over adequate drainage. The article acknowledges the newspaper’s previous support for him, but acknowledgment is only the beginning of an explanation. www.houstonchronicle.com
On September 1, 2016, the Chronicle published “Re-elect Steve Radack,” calling him “an effective leader.” It praised his experience and independence. Yet it already knew about his shortage of fresh ideas and his offensive suggestion that some residents “enjoy floods.” Those shortcomings did not prevent its endorsement. www.houstonchronicle.com
The same editorial credited Radack with supporting taxes for flood infrastructure and joining Ed Emmett in advocating Medicaid expansion. That history deserves attention when judging his priorities today. www.houstonchronicle.com
Meanwhile, the Chronicle’s September 29 endorsement of Letitia Plummer holds up Emmett as an example of principled, moderate leadership. It even uses an “Emmett test” to measure Orlando Sanchez’s willingness to put the county ahead of his party. Emmett receives the glow of remembered leadership; Radack receives the glare of a failed era. www.houstonchronicle.com
In 2018, after Hurricane Harvey, the paper enthusiastically endorsed Emmett again. It acknowledged that the disaster had prompted him to reconsider development and sprawl, while praising his leadership on the flood bond. That offers a possible distinction between the two men, but it also confirms that Emmett’s record belongs in any accounting of the old court. www.houstonchronicle.com
Serving together does not make two officials equally responsible for every decision. Their votes, proposals, and responses to failure matter. But if the indictment is against decades of county policy, readers deserve an examination of everyone who helped direct it—not a convenient division between a beloved statesman and an outdated relic.
The Chronicle can change its mind. What it should explain is how much changed in Radack, how much changed in the county, and how much changed in its own standards. Problems serious enough to help disqualify him today were once problems the editorial board was willing to tolerate.
Read the endorsements, but take them with a grain of salt. They are judgments made by people, not certificates of wisdom. And when the Chronicle grades candidates on their records, readers should grade the Chronicle on its record, too.
