Developer-Linked PAC Spending Shapes Matthews Election

An overview slide from the Nov. 10 meeting shows the conceptual site plan for one of the developments discussed by the Matthews Board of Commissioners. (PHOTO: TOWN OF

An earlier version of this article stated or implied that resident A.C. Freeman obtained the Matthews First PAC documents directly from the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections. In fact, resident George Young first retrieved the original filings from the Board of Elections and shared them with Freeman, who then circulated them publicly. Young also identified that donor Robin Smith is the spouse of donor Garry D. Smith. The article has been updated to reflect this and to clarify that Freeman’s view that his public posts about the documents led to his confrontation with Commissioner John Urban represents his opinion and has not been independently verified. Additionally, the report incorrectly identified resident Sara’s last name as Graham. Her correct last name is Harbin. OpGov.AI apologizes for any errors made.

(MATTHEWS) — A political action committee funded in part by individuals with ties to regional development firms is shaping how residents view the 2025 Matthews election, prompting questions about the timing of its disclosures, the independence of its endorsements, and how officials have responded to resident concerns.

Public filings, interviews with members of the Board of Commissioners, and records reviewed by OpGov.AI show the committee is properly registered with the state, has filed required campaign-finance reports, and shows no enforcement actions. But the timing of donations, the messaging in endorsement mailers, and a disputed early-voting confrontation have heightened scrutiny around a normally low-profile local race.

Resident Review of Documents Sparks Community Attention

The filings for a political committee legally registered as Protect Matthews PAC—commonly referred to by residents as the “Matthews First” PAC because of its branding on mailers—were first reviewed publicly by residents after George Young obtained the original documents in person from the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections. Young also identified that one of the listed donors, Robin Smith, was the wife of donor Garry D. Smith, who has development ties.

Young shared the documents with resident A.C. Freeman, who then circulated them publicly on social media and Nextdoor.

Freeman said his goal was simply to make the information easily available.

“It’s all legal. I just think people should see who is behind the mailers before they vote,” Freeman said.

Another resident, Boris Torres, said, “I’ve lived in Matthews since 2006, and I’ve seen the town change a lot. Schools are squeezed, traffic is worse, and the pace of new apartments and townhomes has been nonstop. When people see a PAC supported by people involved in land development, it makes them worry about whether the community’s voice is being heard.”

PAC Funding and Donor Profiles

Protect Matthews PAC, frequently referred to locally as the Matthews First PAC and linked by supporters to former Mayor Jim Taylor, reported nearly $13,000 in contributions on Oct. 13. Many donors listed professional backgrounds in real estate, development, or land investment.

Mayor Pro Tem Gina Hoover said the timing of the filing raised concerns.

“In my opinion, the timing was intentional,” Hoover said. “The public did not know who funded the PAC materials until after many people had already voted.”

Other commissioners disagreed with that interpretation.

Commissioner Renee Garner said the required disclosure documents were made publicly available.

A page from Protect Matthews PAC’s Oct. 17 pre-election report, labeled “Matthews First” at the top, lists individual contributions including $4,000, $3,000, and $500 from donors identifying work in land development and real estate.

(PHOTO: A.C. FREEMAN)

“As long as the required documents are available for public scrutiny, then I wouldn’t give a PAC any more weight than any other fundraising tool,” Garner said.

Commissioner Mark Tofano said he believed the PAC’s endorsement strategy was structured to fill all six commissioner seats.

“The goal was to fill all of them so there would be no room for Gina Hoover or me,” Tofano said.

Commissioner John Urban, who was endorsed by the PAC, said he had no communication with the PAC.

“I heard from one mayor that a PAC was being formed,” Urban said. “Other than that, I didn’t know the extent of the PAC until the first mailer hit the mailboxes.”

Mayor John Higdon, also endorsed, said his campaign was separate from PAC activities

“My campaign was 100 percent separate from the Matthews First PAC,” Higdon said.

Polling-Site Confrontation Heightens Attention

A confrontation between Commissioner Urban and A.C. Freeman at an early voting site was recorded by resident Sara Harban, who later posted the clip online.

This Nov. 10 meeting is where Mayor John Higdon allegedly stated that the early-voting confrontation video was “heavily edited.” (PHOTO: TOWN OF MATTHEWS)

At the Nov. 10 meeting, Mayor Higdon allegedly stated that the video was “heavily edited.”

Sara disputed that characterization.

“There is no editing in that clip,” she said.

Commissioner Tofano, who said he was standing beside the person recording, supported her account.

Urban, in a written response, gave a different description.

“Mr. Freeman blocked the sidewalk and was ranting and raving at me,” Urban said. “He laced his language with profanity… The precinct judge confronted Mr. Freeman.”

Urban said he had not viewed the video and was told it was edited.

Mayor Higdon said his comment was based on the absence of the beginning of the exchange.

Freeman disputes Urban’s characterization. Freeman also told OpGov.AI he believes the confrontation occurred because he had been “uncovering these documents and detailing them publicly,” though that claim could not be independently verified.

Commissioners’ Views on Transparency Measure

Hoover said the town should consider stronger transparency systems, including faster public-records fulfillment and a financial oversight committee.

Garner said Matthews already follows transparency requirements under state law and cautioned against conflating transparency with the complexity of government processes.

Tofano said state reporting systems are “behind the times” and supports real-time online disclosures.

Urban and Higdon said the PAC complied with all existing requirements.

Commissioners Ken McCool and Leon Threatt did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding both PAC activity and the polling-site video.

The Protect Matthews PAC’s Certification of Threshold filing, submitted under the handwritten label “Matthews First,” shows the committee withdrawing its intent to remain under the $1,000 reporting threshold on Oct. 15, 2025. (PHOTO: A.C. FREEMAN)

Community Requests for Greater Clarity

Residents interviewed said their concerns are tied less to development itself and more to disclosure timing, the tone of public discussions, and access to information before voting.

As Matthews continues to grow, PAC activity, public-records accessibility, and transparency standards are expected to remain central topics in future election cycles.

You can reach Victoria Osborne at victoria.o@lead4earth.org.