Texas Ethics Commission fined Liberty Hill mayor over campaign finance violations

The Texas Ethics Commission fined Liberty Hill Mayor Crystal Mancilla $250 after finding credible evidence that she committed four campaign finance reporting violations during her 2024 and 2025 mayoral campaigns.

The commission approved an order and agreed resolution in September 2025, but the enforcement action appears to have received no local news coverage at the time.

Williamson Reporter learned of the case from a person who contacted the publication and provided a link to the commission’s order.

“I’d love to chat about things going on in Liberty Hill with our City Council and mayor,” the person wrote. “For starters, Mayor Mancilla was charged with six ethics violations by the Texas Ethics Commission last fall. No news outlets will cover this.”

The person also raised concerns about development and the city’s handling of the Butler Farms project, saying city leaders “are not interested in doing what the community wants.” Williamson Reporter is withholding the person’s name because they contacted the publication as a confidential news source.

The commission’s records require an important distinction: Mancilla was not found to have committed all six alleged violations. The sworn complaint contained six allegations, and the commission found credible evidence supporting four of them. It found no credible evidence supporting the other two.

According to the order, Mancilla failed to file a required 30-day pre-election report for the May 4, 2024, special election by its April 4 deadline. She filed it April 19, reporting $9,455.58 in political contributions and $4,742.75 in expenditures.

The commission also found that Mancilla failed to disclose the addresses of people whose contributions she accepted in connection with that election.

Mancilla did not file her July 2024 semiannual campaign finance report until Sept. 3, 2025, more than a year after it was due, according to the order. The report disclosed $7,163.60 in contributions and $4,801.62 in expenditures.

She also filed a required 30-day pre-election report for the May 3, 2025, election on April 23, approximately three weeks after its April 3 deadline. That report disclosed $3,100 in contributions and $1,840.25 in expenditures.

The commission found no credible evidence that Mancilla improperly omitted contributor information from her January 2025 semiannual report because the contributions had been disclosed in the late-filed July 2024 report.

It also rejected an allegation that she illegally accepted more than $100 in cash. Mancilla provided bank documentation showing that a disputed $2,500 contribution was a check with the word “cash” written on the deposit slip.

In assessing the seriousness of the violations, the commission noted that Mancilla initially reported receiving $4,000 in contributions without identifying three of the contributors. The late-filed report showed that all three worked for companies involved in the real estate industry.

“Given that Liberty Hill has been experiencing a real estate development surge, the respondent’s late filing of the July 2024 semiannual report affected the public’s knowledge of who actually contributed to her campaign,” the commission wrote.

The commission said transparency was particularly important because people involved in real estate development may contribute to municipal candidates while seeking to build relationships and obtain official support.

The order also noted that Mancilla had no previous violations and later corrected the reports and filed them with the city secretary.

Mancilla neither admitted nor denied the commission’s findings. By signing the agreed resolution, she consented to the order and waived further proceedings in the case.

She signed the agreement Sept. 16, 2025, and the commission executed it Sept. 18.

The order required Mancilla to pay the $250 penalty within 30 days. Failure to pay would result in an additional $2,500 penalty and possible referral to the Texas attorney general’s office for collection.

Although the enforcement action occurred months ago, the underlying issues remain relevant because campaign finance reports are intended to tell voters who is financially supporting candidates before they cast their ballots—not more than a year later.