By Jett Whittington, The Alliance Gazette
A reader wrote to the Gazette with a question about campaign signs: is it legal for a candidate to use photos showing him with clothing and equipment paid for with public funds, such as a fire truck or a fireman’s uniform?
A photograph is not unlawful political advertising merely because it shows a candidate’s past public service or public property. The statutes that govern this subject control how a campaign photo was made and paid for, and who made it. This review does not establish the original purpose or arrangement of Williams’ photograph.
The question arrived as Sam Williams campaigns for the vacant seat on the Eastland City Commission. Williams served with the Eastland Fire Department from November 2004 until June 2025, most recently as deputy chief and then as acting chief. His campaign signs include a photograph of him in fire department attire. The Gazette reviewed the sign and researched the law that applies to it.
What the sign shows
The sign pictures Williams in formal fire department attire, wearing the Eastland fire insignia, with part of a fire truck visible behind him. The photograph dates from his service with the department. The only office named is the one he seeks, in the words “for City Commissioner.” The sign carries no fire department title.
The law is about spending, not pictures
The statute most often raised in these disputes is Texas Election Code Section 255.003. It says an officer or employee of a political subdivision may not knowingly spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor.
Two features of that sentence decide most cases. First, it binds only officers and employees of a political subdivision, meaning a city, county or school district. The Texas Ethics Commission has applied that limit plainly. In Advisory Opinion 561, it concluded the provision does not reach district judges because they are not officers or employees of political subdivisions.
Second, the prohibited act is spending. The Commission reads spending broadly. In Advisory Opinion 550, it said spending includes the use of a public employee’s work time or a political subdivision’s equipment or facilities. What the statute does not do is prohibit a photograph from depicting public property. A yard sign is political advertising under the Election Code. The question the law asks is what was spent to produce it.
That is where the line falls. A sitting city employee who stages a campaign photo with city-owned gear, inside a station area closed to the public, or with on-duty crew, is using the resources the statute was written about. The same conduct can reach Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity, which applies when a public servant misuses government property that came into his custody through his office or employment. Williams left the department in June 2025.
What the Ethics Commission has decided
The Texas Ethics Commission has addressed campaign photographs taken with government property more than once. Its opinions are agency interpretations rather than court rulings, but they are the closest guidance the state has.
In Advisory Opinion 550, the Commission said a public officer may not use government resources in the officer’s custody, such as a private office, to create a photograph for political advertising, but may use resources that are equally accessible to the general public. In Advisory Opinion 561, it said the Penal Code does not prohibit public servants from repurposing an image created for a separate, lawful purpose, giving the example of a newspaper photograph taken from a public gallery.
The distinction the Commission draws is between arranging a photograph with government resources for campaign use and reusing an image that already existed for another lawful reason. Both opinions address public officers and employees.
The closest enforcement case involves a photo shoot. In a December 2022 order, the Commission found credible evidence that the mayor of Lone Star violated Section 255.003 by unlocking a restricted city meeting room so a candidate from another city could take an endorsement photograph, and by having the city secretary take it during business hours. The penalty was a $500 civil penalty. It fell on the official who supplied the room and the staff time, not on the candidate in the photograph. Hodges neither admitted nor denied the findings in the agreed resolution.
The Gazette found no Texas enforcement action penalizing a candidate for appearing in uniform or near a fire truck.
Office titles and the state seal
A separate statute, Election Code Section 255.006, makes it an offense to knowingly represent in a campaign communication that a candidate holds a public office he does not hold. The statute sets a specific test. A representation occurs if the candidate does not hold the office he seeks and the advertising states that office without including the word “for” in a type size at least half the size used for the name of the office.
Williams’ sign states the office he is seeking and uses the word “for.” That is the form the statute calls for. The sign states no fire department title.
The same section makes it an offense for a person other than an officeholder to knowingly use a representation of the state seal in political advertising. That provision covers the seal of the State of Texas. It does not cover a city seal or a fire department patch.
The insignia
The fire insignia on the sign raises a narrower question, and Texas law says less about it than readers might expect.
The Penal Code provision on false insignia, Section 37.12, applies to items identifying a person as a peace officer. The Gazette found no comparable Texas statute covering fire department insignia. The impersonation statute, Section 37.11, requires impersonating a public servant with intent to induce another person to submit to pretended authority, or purporting to exercise a function of a public office without legal authority. A campaign photograph of a candidate’s own prior service does not meet that description.
Cities may adopt a seal under Local Government Code Section 51.016, but that section does not itself decide whether other laws restrict a particular use. In In re City of Houston, decided in 2013, the Federal Circuit held that a city cannot federally register its official insignia as a trademark. The Gazette found no Texas case or attorney general opinion in which a city enforced rights in its seal or logo against a campaign.
The Ethics Commission has addressed city logos, but in the context of employees. In Advisory Opinion 532, it said a city officer may not use city letterhead carrying a logo designed with city funds in political advertising, because the logo is a city resource. In Advisory Opinion 625, issued in June 2025, it said repurposing a publicly available logo would not violate Section 255.003.
A city could address the use of its seal, logo or uniform through its own personnel policy, though policies of that kind are generally written to bind current employees. Houston Police General Order 200-06, for example, bars employees from appearing in political advertisements in any portion of a department uniform. The Gazette found no City of Eastland policy on the subject in public sources.
Rules that apply to every sign in the race
Disclosure requirements apply to political signs, regardless of what the photograph shows.
Election Code Section 255.001 requires political advertising to state that it is political advertising and to give the full name of the person who paid for it, the political committee authorizing it, or, if authorized by the candidate, the candidate or the specific-purpose committee supporting the candidate. The exemptions cover fundraiser invitations, campaign buttons and similar items, and circulars or flyers costing less than $500 in total. Yard signs are not exempt. The civil penalty may not exceed $4,000. The Ethics Commission has said the disclosure must appear on both sides of a double-sided sign.
Under Eastland’s zoning table, political signs require no permit and are governed by state requirements.
Williams’ response
Under a previous Gazette post concerning Williams, the candidate commented the following, which is an excerpt of his full comment:
“While volunteering with EFD, I completely re-wrote bylaws that were adopted by the membership, drew the plans for the station expansion, planned and executed construction of the parking structure in the back, initiated and wrote the proclamation the created the Greg Simmons Meritorious Service Award, authored “The Legend of Ole Pudge Simmons” poem, made two trips to the Pierce Fire Apparatus manufacturing facility to specify and inspect Ladder 6 before its delivery, attended well over 3000 calls for service, attained Firefighter 2 certification, extrication technician, rope rescue technician, and several other specialty certifications, together with many other accomplishments, to lengthy to list.
If you wonder why I chose a picture from my fire career, it’s because it is representative of who I am and I am proud of my service to Eastland. It’s part of my resume and it’s no different than my opponent sporting a Maverick shirt.”
A resident who believes an Election Code provision has been violated may file a sworn complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission. Penal Code matters go to the county or district attorney.
The bottom line
A campaign photograph is not unlawful merely because it shows a candidate’s own past fire service. Section 255.003 binds officers and employees of a political subdivision, and Williams left the Eastland Fire Department in June 2025. His sign names only the office he seeks, and the state seal provision reaches the seal of Texas rather than a city or department insignia.
Separate sign-disclosure requirements also apply to signs regardless of what the photograph shows.
A photograph is not unlawful political advertising merely because it shows a candidate’s past public service. Opinions 561 and 646 support reusing lawfully created material. This review does not establish the original purpose or arrangement of Williams’ photograph and therefore does not make a finding about how it was produced.
Sources
• Texas Election Code Chapter 255, Sections 255.001, 255.003, 255.006
• Texas Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 550, 2019, amended 2020
• Texas Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 561, 2021
• Texas Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 646, May 13, 2026
• Texas Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 532, 2015
• Texas Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 625, June 2025
• In the Matter of Randy Hodges, SC-32204206, December 2022
• Texas Ethics Commission political advertising guidance, 2025
• Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity
• Texas Penal Code Section 37.11, impersonating a public servant
• Texas Penal Code Section 37.12, false identification as a peace officer
• Local Government Code Section 150.002 and Section 143.086
• Local Government Code Section 51.016, municipal seal
• In re City of Houston, 731 F.3d 1326, Fed. Cir. 2013
• Houston Police General Order 200-06, political activities
• City of Eastland code of ordinances
