Full Breakdown
Cell Tower Income Highlights Ken Paxton’s Senate-Race Finances
8/11/2026, 12:27:18 AM
Core Disclosure
Federal financial-disclosure forms and records obtained by *The New York Times* reveal that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton earned between $100,000 and $1 million roughly every 18 months from Premier Vertical Properties, a cellular-tower company he co-founded in 2005. The firm leases space on a tower located north of Dallas that was erected about 20 years ago on the grounds of Centennial Medical Center, where Paxton served on the board from 2003 to 2013. A 2006 lease agreement with T-Mobile listed Ten et Hospitals—then the hospital’s parent company—as a party to the deal.
Political Context
Paxton is currently in a close, contentious U.S. Senate race in Texas. His Democratic opponent has publicly questioned how a public-servant’s salary could support a multimillion-dollar real-estate portfolio, citing the cell-tower earnings as a focal point of scrutiny. The disclosure comes amid a broader pattern of opponents examining Paxton’s finances throughout his decade-long rise to prominence.
Financial Mechanics
Premier Vertical Properties’ revenue stream stems from leasing tower space to wireless carriers. The disclosed earnings of $100,000-$1 million per 18-month period represent a significant supplement to Paxton’s official salary as attorney general. The lease with T-Mobile was signed in 2006, and the tower’s location on hospital property suggests a potential overlap between Paxton’s public duties and private interests.
Institutional Responses
Ten et Hospitals declined to comment when approached for details about the lease. The current administration of Centennial Medical Center indicated it could not provide information about agreements made before its tenure, leaving the precise terms of any arrangement between the hospital and Paxton’s company unclear.
Implications
The financial disclosure adds a concrete data point to ongoing debates over possible conflicts of interest for elected officials who maintain private business ventures. While the earnings are documented, the lack of clarity on the lease terms and the hospital’s non-response leave unanswered questions about whether Paxton’s public role directly facilitated the private income stream.
