Roger Marshall Pays $1,300 to Settle Six-Year-Old Bakery Bill, What the Law Says

U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) paid $1,300 to a Hutchinson, Kansas bakery after its owner publicly said his 2020 campaign never paid a $678.75 invoice for baked goods. The owner, Holly Thomas of Holly’s Sweet Treats, confirmed she received the money. No lawsuit, court judgment or government finding has been reported in connection with the bill.

The payment closes the dispute between the two parties. It also raises two legal questions that most coverage skipped: what federal campaign-finance rules require when a campaign owes a vendor, and whether the bakery could still have sued after six years. This article covers both, and it is clear about what the public record does and does not prove.

Quick Facts: Roger Marshall’s Bakery Debt

Detail	What is known
Senator	Roger Marshall, Republican of Kansas
Business	Holly’s Sweet Treats, Hutchinson, Kansas
Bakery owner	Holly Thomas
Original invoice	$678.75
What was ordered	Cookies and other treats for a 2020 primary-election watch party
Unpaid for	About six years, according to Thomas
Public complaint	Facebook post on Thursday, October 8, 2026
Payment	$1,300, announced by Marshall on or about October 10, 2026
Payment confirmed	Yes, Thomas said the invoice was paid
Lawsuit filed	None reported
FEC violation found	None reported
Claim program for the public	None. This was a single vendor invoice

What Happened Between the Marshall Campaign and Holly’s Sweet Treats

Thomas says Marshall’s campaign ordered cookies and treats from her bakery for its 2020 primary-election watch party, and that she was never paid. In her Facebook post, which included screenshots of the invoice, she wrote that she was a brand-new business owner at the time, that the pandemic had made every dollar count, and that she never got a return phone call.

She also described the cost of the order: ingredients, employee time and resources her small business could not afford to give away.

The post spread quickly. Within days, Marshall said his team had not known about the unpaid bill, that the campaign had contacted the bakery, and that the bill had been repaid. He posted a screenshot of a $1,300 payment. Thomas later said she had received it and could mark the invoice paid.

These are two accounts from two people. Thomas says she tried to collect and heard nothing back. Marshall says he did not know the bill was outstanding. Neither account has been tested in court or reviewed by a regulator, so each is attributed here to the person who made it.

Timeline

Date	Event
2020	Campaign orders baked goods for a primary-election watch party; $678.75 invoice issued
2020 to 2021	Thomas says she tried to collect by phone and email without success
October 8, 2026	Thomas posts the unpaid invoice on Facebook
About October 10, 2026	Marshall says the bill has been paid and shares a $1,300 payment screenshot
After payment	Thomas confirms the invoice is paid

Why Did Marshall Pay $1,300 on a $678.75 Invoice?

Marshall described the payment as repaying the bill “double.” The numbers are close to that but not exact:

• Double $678.75 is $1,357.50.
• The reported payment of $1,300 is $57.50 less than that.
• The payment is $621.25 more than the original invoice.

Was the extra money owed? Kansas has a default interest rule. Under K.S.A. 16-201, when parties have not agreed on a rate, a creditor may receive interest at 10 percent per year on money after it becomes due. That rule applies to contract debts where no other rate was agreed.

Using that rate as an illustration only, 10 percent simple interest on $678.75 comes to about $67.88 per year. Over six years that is roughly $407, which would put principal plus interest near $1,086. The $1,300 payment is above that figure.

This is arithmetic, not a legal finding. The public record does not show a written agreement on interest or late fees, does not show what Thomas asked for, and does not say how the $1,300 figure was chosen. The safest description is that Marshall made a payment larger than the original invoice and the bakery accepted it as full resolution.

What Federal Campaign-Finance Law Says About Unpaid Campaign Bills

Marshall ran for the U.S. Senate, so his campaign committee was a federal committee. Federal committees report their finances to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101 and following. State campaign-finance law, such as Kansas’s own disclosure statutes for state races, does not govern a federal committee. The federal act preempts it (52 U.S.C. 30143).

Reporting unpaid vendor bills

FEC rules treat unpaid bills as debts that must be disclosed. The key provisions are 11 CFR 104.3(d) and 104.11, which the FEC explains in its guidance on disclosing debts and debts owed by a committee. In general:

• Debts over $500 are reported in the report covering the period when the debt was incurred.
• Debts of $500 or less are reported once they have been outstanding more than 60 days.
• Continuing reporting: a qualifying debt keeps appearing on each report until it is paid or properly settled.
• Itemization: the committee lists the creditor, the purpose, the amount owed and any payments made.

At $678.75, the bakery invoice is above the $500 line. If it was a debt of a federal committee, the rules would generally have required it to be disclosed in the report covering the date it was incurred and carried forward until paid.

What the rules say about vendors, settlement and corporate contributions

The FEC’s debt rules are in 11 CFR part 116. Two ideas matter here.

First, a commercial vendor that extends credit to a campaign must do so in the ordinary course of its business, on terms similar to what it would give a non-political customer of similar risk (11 CFR 116.3). Second, if a debt is settled for less than owed or forgiven, the vendor must have made commercially reasonable efforts to collect, and the settlement must be reported (11 CFR part 116).

These rules exist because federal law bars corporations from contributing to federal candidates (52 U.S.C. 30118). A corporate vendor that forgives a campaign debt without meeting the rules can end up making a prohibited in-kind contribution. Whether Holly’s Sweet Treats is an incorporated business is not stated in the public reports, so this point is background only.

Who paid the $1,300 matters for reporting

The reports do not say whether the money came from campaign funds or from Marshall personally. That affects how it would be disclosed. A payment by the committee is a reportable disbursement. A payment from a candidate’s personal funds would need to be reported in line with the FEC’s rules on candidate contributions and loans. Paying a legitimate campaign debt is a campaign purpose, so the personal-use ban in 52 U.S.C. 30114(b) is not the issue. The issue, if any, would be accurate reporting.

Does this prove a campaign-finance violation?

No. An unpaid invoice and a reporting violation are separate questions. Answering the second one would take facts the public reports do not provide:

• which committee actually incurred the obligation;
• whether the debt met the reporting rules when it was incurred;
• whether the committee listed it and updated it on later reports;
• whether it was disputed, settled or handled in some other way.

The FEC’s candidate data for Marshall’s 2020 cycle shows aggregate figures, which are not a substitute for reading the committee’s detailed reports and debt schedules. You can check them yourself at FEC.gov. No FEC investigation, finding or penalty about this invoice has been reported.

One more point about timing. Federal civil penalty actions are generally subject to a five-year limit under 28 U.S.C. 2462. How that applies to a reporting duty that continues across filing periods is a legal question this article does not try to answer.

Could the Bakery Have Sued Over the Unpaid Invoice?

Probably it would have had a valid contract claim in 2020 or 2021 if it could prove the order, the delivery and the price. The harder question in October 2026 is time.

Which Kansas deadline applies?

Two Kansas deadlines are in play, and the second is the one that usually controls an order for baked goods.

• K.S.A. 60-511 gives five years for actions on written contracts. A signed contract or written agreement is the typical example. An invoice alone does not always make a contract “written” under that statute.
• K.S.A. 60-512 gives three years for contracts that are not in writing and for implied contracts.
• K.S.A. 84-2-725, Kansas’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code deadline for sales of goods, requires an action for breach of a contract for sale to be started within four years after the cause of action accrues. The parties can shorten that period to as little as one year in the original agreement, but cannot extend it.

Baked goods are goods. When a contract is mainly for the sale of goods, the UCC’s four-year deadline generally applies instead of the longer general contract deadline. Under that statute, a claim accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of whether the seller knew about it. If the invoice came due in 2020 and was not paid, the breach occurred in 2020, and a four-year period would have run out around 2024.

A court would decide which deadline governs on the actual facts, so this is not a prediction of how a case would have come out. It does show why “six years old” matters. A sale-of-goods claim of that age may be barred.

An expired deadline does not erase the debt

A statute of limitations limits the remedy, which is the right to win a judgment in court. It does not make the money any less owed in a moral or business sense, and nothing stops a debtor from paying a debt voluntarily after the deadline. That appears to be what happened here. Kansas also has a statute, K.S.A. 60-520, that addresses how a part payment or a signed acknowledgment of a debt can restart the clock. It matters to vendors who accept partial payments on old accounts.

Small claims court

A claim of this size fits Kansas small claims court. Since July 1, 2024, the limit is $10,000, up from $4,000, exclusive of interest and costs (K.S.A. 61-2703). Small claims is a division of the district court, and parties often handle these cases without a lawyer.

Evidence a vendor would want to have

• the invoice and any purchase order or order confirmation;
• messages showing who placed the order and who agreed to pay;
• proof of delivery or pickup;
• written payment terms or a due date;
• a record of every collection attempt;
• proof of any later payment.

Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act apply?

Not on these facts. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 and following) covers debt collectors collecting consumer debts, meaning personal, family or household debts. A bakery’s invoice to a political campaign is a commercial debt. State contract law and the FEC’s disclosure rules are the better starting points.

What Small Businesses Can Learn From the Invoice

Unpaid invoices are a common problem for small businesses, and political campaigns are not exempt from ordinary commercial obligations. Practical steps include:

• Get the buyer’s legal name in writing. Campaign committees have formal names. Know which entity is responsible for payment.
• Ask for a deposit or prepayment on large or one-time orders, especially from a customer you cannot easily chase.
• State the due date and any late fee or interest rate on the invoice. Without an agreed rate, the Kansas default rate may apply.
• Follow up in writing and keep copies. Email and certified mail create a record.
• Track the deadline. For goods, a four-year period may apply. Waiting can cost you the right to sue.
• Check the FEC. A federal committee’s reports are public. A vendor can search the committee’s filings to see whether a debt was listed, and anyone can file an FEC complaint if they believe the law was broken (52 U.S.C. 30109).

Posting about a dispute publicly can get results, as this case shows. It also carries risk, since statements about a named person or business should be accurate and provable. It is not a replacement for a written demand or a court filing when those are needed.

A Separate Matter in the Same News Cycle

Some coverage of the bakery story also mentioned earlier reports that Marshall, when he practiced medicine, pursued collection actions against patients over small medical bills. Those reports concern a different subject and are not part of the bakery dispute, so they are not evaluated here.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much did Roger Marshall’s campaign originally owe the bakery?

The invoice that Holly Thomas shared totaled $678.75 for baked goods ordered for a 2020 primary-election watch party.

How much did Marshall pay?

Marshall shared a screenshot of a $1,300 payment. Thomas said she received it and marked the invoice paid.

Was $1,300 exactly double the invoice?

No. Double $678.75 is $1,357.50, so $1,300 is $57.50 less. The difference does not show what amount was legally owed.

Did Roger Marshall violate federal campaign-finance law?

No violation has been found or reported. Federal rules require committees to disclose qualifying unpaid vendor debts, but whether this invoice was reported correctly depends on the committee’s filings, which the public reports do not address.

Did Holly Thomas sue Marshall?

No lawsuit has been reported. The dispute became public through her social media post, and it ended with a payment.

Could the bakery have sued?

It could have had a contract claim, but time limits matter. Kansas generally allows four years to sue over a contract for the sale of goods (K.S.A. 84-2-725). A six-year-old claim for baked goods may have been barred. A court would decide which deadline applies.

Does Kansas law set an interest rate on unpaid invoices?

Yes, when the parties did not agree on one. K.S.A. 16-201 sets the default at 10 percent per year on money after it becomes due.

Does the FDCPA apply to this kind of debt?

Generally no. It covers consumer debts collected by third-party collectors, and this was a business-to-campaign invoice.

Can the public claim money because of this dispute?

No. This was a payment to one business over one invoice. There is no settlement fund, class action or claim form.

What the Public Record Does Not Show

• It does not show whether the invoice was reported to the FEC, because the detailed filings were not part of the public reporting.
• It does not show whether the $1,300 came from campaign funds or personal funds.
• It does not show whether there was a written agreement on interest, late fees or deadlines.
• It does not show a lawsuit, an FEC complaint or an enforcement action over this invoice.

Sources and Legal References

1. Federal Election Commission: Disclosing Debts and Debts Owed by the Committee
2. Federal Election Commission: Roger Marshall, 2020 candidate financial overview
3. Code of Federal Regulations: 11 CFR 104.3(d), 104.11 and part 116 (debts, credit and settlement), at eCFR.gov
4. United States Code: 52 U.S.C. 30104, 30109, 30114, 30118 and 30143 (reporting, enforcement, personal use, corporate contributions, preemption)
5. Kansas Legislature: K.S.A. 84-2-725, limitation period for contracts for sale; K.S.A. 60-511, 60-512 and 60-520 (general limitation periods)
6. Kansas Secretary of State, session laws: 2023 Ch. 55 (K.S.A. 16-201, legal interest rate) and 2024 Ch. 22 (K.S.A. 61-2703, small-claims limit)
7. Raw Story via DNYUZ: GOP senator’s woes deepen after baker accuses him of skipping a nearly $700 cookie bill

For another example of federal rules meeting a political story, see Stelson, DHS And ICE Arrest, Hatch Act Complaint Explained.

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. It explains reported events and relevant law without deciding liability or compliance in any specific case. Deadlines and rules vary by facts and can change. For a specific unpaid invoice or campaign-finance question, consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher

Last updated: October 12, 2026