HOUSTON, Texas — Republican candidate for Harris County District Clerk Chris Daniel said he has not seen a newsletter advertisement his campaign paid Aubrey Taylor to publish during the current election cycle, according to responses provided to Houston Stringer as part of a request for comment.

The responses were provided after Houston Stringer contacted Daniel regarding publicly available campaign finance records reflecting payments to Taylor and sought clarification about the nature of the relationship.

Daniel confirmed that his campaigns made payments to Taylor over several election cycles.

When asked whether he knew Taylor had a felony conviction at the time the payments were made, Daniel responded that he did not.

According to Daniel, the payments were made for advertising in Taylor’s print and digital newsletters. He said Taylor was expected to place advertisements in his newsletter and publish Daniel’s photo or campaign logo on his digital newsletter blog.

When asked whether Taylor fulfilled the services for which he was paid, Daniel said he was unsure. He said he saw his campaign logo on Taylor’s website “a couple of times” and received a recommendation in 2022. However, Daniel said he paid for a newsletter advertisement during the current election cycle that he has not yet seen.

Houston Stringer also asked Daniel about Taylor’s public Facebook page, which continues to display a cover photo promoting Daniel’s campaign.

Daniel responded that, other than being paid for one advertisement during the current election cycle, Taylor has no official relationship with his campaign. He said he did not ask Taylor to display his campaign logo on the Facebook page and has not spoken with him recently.

When asked whether he could provide invoices, contracts, receipts or other documentation related to the campaign expenditures, Daniel said he did not believe he retained any records after making the payments.

Daniel did not provide any additional information or context regarding his campaign’s relationship with Taylor.

Following Daniel’s response, Dr. Matthews issued a public statement addressing the campaign’s answers.

According to Dr. Matthews, Daniel’s written response confirms that his campaigns paid Aubrey Taylor over multiple election cycles for advertising, that Daniel said he was unaware of Taylor’s felony conviction at the time of the payments, is uncertain whether all of the advertising services were performed, and stated there is no current official relationship between Taylor and his campaign.

Dr. Matthews said those statements raise “serious questions” that public officials should consider before spending campaign funds. She said she does not believe any politician, regardless of political party, should continue doing business with Taylor based on the information now publicly available.

Dr. Matthews also said campaigns have a responsibility to conduct due diligence before paying vendors or media outlets with campaign funds. She stated that campaign donors expect transparency, voters expect accountability, and public officials should know who they are hiring, understand the backgrounds of vendors, and verify that contracted services are actually being performed.

Dr. Matthews concluded by stating that her concerns are not about political party, but about protecting the integrity of elections and maintaining public trust. She said campaigns should seek other vendors if there are unanswered questions regarding a vendor’s background or performance until those questions are resolved.

Disclaimer: This article may include statements, opinions, or allegations made by interview subjects, guests, contributors, or members of the public. These statements are solely those of the individual speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views of Houston Stringer. Unless specifically identified as verified reporting, such statements have not been independently verified by Houston Stringer and should not be interpreted as established fact. Readers are encouraged to review original source documents and statements from all parties before reaching conclusions. For more information, please see our Disclaimer.