The political landscape in Dallas has become increasingly contentious, with incidents of outside influence and personal attacks defining recent elections. At the heart of this controversy is Damien LeVeck, the local online pundit behind the social media account Dallas En Fuego. His hard-edged campaign strategies have sparked debates over the ethics of political spending and allegations of homophobia, particularly aimed at incumbent Council Member Chad West.
LeVeck’s approach involved targeting specific candidates and attempting to sway voters away from them, drawing stark contrasts to the more subdued financial influence typically exerted by Dallas’s political establishment.
In the May elections, LeVeck referred to West as “Bathhouse Chad,” a label that prompted West to label the commentary as homophobic. West, who has made his mark in Dallas politics as an openly gay council member, has condemned LeVeck’s tactics. Alongside West, LeVeck also derided Council Member Adam Bazaldua as a “fry cook,” a moniker that Bazaldua stated was both inaccurate and disrespectful, pointing to his culinary background.
Another targeted candidate, Jeff Kitner, received the nickname “Jolly Jeff” from LeVeck, who also released a video that included an AI-generated image of Kitner in an unflattering light. The examination of candidates’ personal backgrounds reflects a trend where anything goes in political discourse.
LeVeck’s critique of West was particularly focused on West’s reported campaign expenses. Among these were payments made to West himself for “contract” labor, as well as questionable expenditures at a bathhouse and two gay-themed bars. These revelations ignited fierce criticism from West, who defended the use of the funds by stating that the spending was related to campaign activities with friends and supporters. “I don’t know how better to describe it other than it’s a kind of an anything goes attack to take people out of office that you don’t agree with,” West explained in an interview, denouncing the personal nature of the attacks.
In response, LeVeck asserted that the videos were aimed at highlighting what he perceived as unethical use of donor funds for personal lifestyle expenses, rather than targeting West’s sexual orientation. He told KERA, “I don’t care what a grown man or grown woman does in their free time with their own money.” Political analysts have noted that personal attacks, while not new to the arena, have increasingly targeted sexual orientation as a tactic, particularly among Republican candidates.
Professor Cal Jillson from Southern Methodist University analyzed the motivations behind such attacks, suggesting that while they resonate with some voters, they do not consistently sway the opinions of Republican constituents. “Not as many Republican voters as Republican candidates believe that those kinds of charges are critical,” he noted. Despite the accusations against him, West emerged victorious in his reelection campaign, securing 58.78% of the vote.
LeVeck’s scrutiny of West’s expenses revealed a total spending amount of just $256.10 for the contested items, which have drawn scrutiny but did not warrant a civil penalty from the Texas Ethics Commission. The cry for transparency in campaign finance continues as West explains that his expenditures were for personal meetings and campaign-related discussions with supporters at different venues.
“This wasn’t just a night out — this was with a major contributor to the Victory Fund,” West stated, justifying his spending at a Washington D.C. bathhouse.
While LaVeck continues to challenge the ethics of West’s spending, he has also directed attention toward other Dallas officials who have similarly used campaign funds for personal expenses. Council Member Jessie Moreno, for instance, controversially expensed over $900 for a hotel stay just after his election. Meanwhile, District 12 Council Member Cara Mendelsohn spent nearly $4,000 at a venue she categorized as an election party during her unopposed run. Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson, too, used campaign funding for a Harvard Club membership and expenditures related to meetings that occurred after his reelection.
In light of the criticism surrounding these spending practices, West defended the necessity of such expenses in the political realm and questioned why they are only scrutinized when related to LGBTQ+ venues. “Why is it a challenge to spend money at a gay establishment in another city versus a straight establishment in that city?” he asked.
Cal Jillson underscored the risks involved with politicians taking such liberties with campaign funds, suggesting that scrutiny is inevitably heightened in today’s environment of detailed financial reporting. “It’s probably unwise to charge bathhouse charges to a political account,” Jillson remarked, highlighting how public perception plays a key role in political judgment.
LeVeck’s focus, he claims, is not exclusively on West. “It’s to pick on all the city council members for anything that they do that’s stupid,” he stated, emphasizing that West’s spending was not a personal vendetta but rather part of a broader critique of political governance.
The campaign strategy employed by LeVeck is drastically opposed to the well-established political financial contributions from Dallas’ elite circles. Business leaders and other influential figures regularly pump significant sums into political campaigns to sway outcomes — a contrast to LeVeck’s grassroots approach of vocal outcry against campaigns that challenge the status quo.
Having filed complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission alleging misuse of campaign funds by West, LeVeck claims he is focused on promoting transparency and accountability in political spending. He dismisses claims of homophobia as mere distraction, pointing out that some individuals can be sensitive about issues relating to sexual orientation.
“I wouldn’t look too deeply into the nickname,” he claimed regarding his reference to Kitner, underscoring that humor and satire can often be misinterpreted.
LeVeck characterized his intentions as centered around addressing misconduct rather than launching personal attacks. He mentioned that he has many friends within the gay community and that he seeks to avoid offending them with his commentary. Still, he acknowledges that not everyone will appreciate his approach.
West expressed retrospective disappointment regarding the distinctions in political campaigns since he first entered the arena, contrasting it with earlier eras that focused more on policy issues rather than personal character assassination. “The attacks were based on policy issues, not on sexual orientation, race, someone’s weight,” West remarked, capturing a shift in political tactics over the years.
Despite the barrage of criticism aimed at incumbents from LeVeck, the results of the May elections largely favored those already holding office, with West and others retaining their positions. Jillson remarked on the challenges faced by newcomers and outsiders when it comes to establishing a foothold in local politics, observing that it is difficult for a “lone voice crying in the wilderness” to disrupt the established order.
The reliability of name recognition, campaign contributions, and existing political machinery represents a formidable barrier for challengers attempting to gain traction.
Regardless of LeVeck’s efforts, the Dallas political machine persists, with incumbents winning reelection amidst a backdrop of personal attacks and ethical scrutiny. The events highlight the evolving landscape of campaign discourse in the region, raising questions about the implications of personal attacks and candidate accountability in contemporary politics.
image source from：https://www.keranews.org/news/2025-05-29/a-dallas-pundits-election-name-calling-bathhouse-chad-fry-cook-balzadua-jolly-jeff-kitner
