Dallas Morning News Pushes Republican Gina Hinojosa Supporter but Omitted This Key Detail

Whenever a Republican crosses over to vote for a Democrat, you can bet on at least one of two things happening: the Democrats applaud this brave act of putting country over party or we learn that the so-called "lifelong Republican" was not. In this case, we learned that the Republican who penned an op-ed in The Dallas Morning News was actually a paid operative for Gina Hinojosa.

I’m a Republican, but Gina Hinojosa has my vote https://t.co/LXBZfsCFsh pic.twitter.com/N5DFAzut7u

— Dallas Morning News (@dallasnews) November 1, 2026

Here's some of that op-ed:

Last spring, I was riding shotgun on a tractor with my dad in the Texas Panhandle when a Democratic legislator from Austin reached out to me on social media.

Gina Hinojosa wanted me to look at a bill she had filed to increase oversight of the Texas Education Agency. Would I, a longtime Republican and former campaign staffer for Gov. Greg Abbott, join her at a news conference to help move it forward?

She knew we came from different political backgrounds. She also recognized that we shared concerns about the direction of public education in Texas and how our tax dollars were being spent.

She started with what we agreed on. Texas needs more of that.

That experience is why I see something in Hinojosa that deserves more consideration from The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: the ability to bring people together to get things done.

I worked on education policy as a baby staffer during the George W. Bush years. Business, political and education leaders, including leaders from Dallas, helped shape an accountability system around an ambitious commitment: Every child should have the opportunity to succeed.

But what The Dallas Morning News didn't dig into was that the writer, Suzanne Bellsnyder, received $57,000 in consulting payments from the Gina Hinojosa campaign. 

This “Republican” is being paid by the Hinojosa campaign.

Receipts: https://t.co/uOxbJ0fRAE pic.twitter.com/LmG8ReCK32

— Eduardo Leal (@EddLeal29) November 1, 2026

Leal is a spokesperson for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

And The Dallas Morning News was forced to put an editor's note on the piece admitting the chicanery.

BREAKING: Dallas Morning News just added an editor's note saying they were unaware that the author was paid $57,000 by Gina Hinojosa’s political campaign.

They said they wouldn't have published it if they knew.

Then take it down, now, @dallasnews. pic.twitter.com/V8uwidmPBy

— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) November 2, 2026

Here's what that note, which now appears at the top of the op-ed, says:

After the publication of this column, the author confirmed to The Dallas Morning News that she is a paid consultant of the Hinojosa campaign. She did not disclose this at the time of submission or during the editing process. Our expectation is that readers be aware of all conflicts and potential conflicts. Had we been aware of this conflict, we would have declined to publish this piece. We regret that we were not.

The piece was originally published on October 31; the editor's note was added November 1 at 3:00 PM. That means this piece was up for hours before The Dallas Morning News added the correction. How many people read it and will never know that Bellsnyder was a paid consultant for Hinojosa?

Many.

Fixed it for ya, @dallasnews. You're welcome. https://t.co/oAxqBCCovk pic.twitter.com/eLxt5fNJIA

— Brian Harrison (@brianeharrison) November 1, 2026

That's the honest headline here.

Dallas Morning News ran an op for a Democrat campaign right before an election involving a paid op/ed and thinks a bitty editor’s note at the bottom added hours later suffices as disclosure.
Should this be investigated as a violation of Texas law?https://t.co/f30nDPngA6 https://t.co/CXlLniIXot

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 2, 2026

The law Dana Loesch links to expressly prohibits this kind of behavior:

Sec. 255.001. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ON POLITICAL ADVERTISING.

(a) A person may not knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising containing express advocacy that does not indicate in the advertising:

(1) that it is political advertising; and

(2) the full name of:

(A) the person who paid for the political advertising;

(B) the political committee authorizing the political advertising; or

(C) the candidate or specific-purpose committee supporting the candidate, if the political advertising is authorized by the candidate.

(b) Political advertising that is authorized by a candidate, an agent of a candidate, or a political committee filing reports under this title shall be deemed to contain express advocacy. (c) A person may not knowingly use, cause or permit to be used, or continue to use any published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising containing express advocacy that the person knows does not include the disclosure required by Subsection (a).

And for all their regret, the piece is still up.

.@dallasnews: "Had we been aware of this conflict, we would have declined to publish this piece."

So why is it still up?

Retract it. https://t.co/6ru0rn66Ve pic.twitter.com/L045c8eoZV

— Andrew Mahaleris (@Mahaleris) November 1, 2026

We all know why it's still up.

Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.

Help Townhall continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.