AUSTIN — The Texas Senate, led by a Republican majority, has taken a significant step toward the prohibition of local governments utilizing public funds for hiring lobbyists.
The Senate approved the measure, Senate Bill 12, with a 17-11 vote on Wednesday, following a debate that has sparked discussions over whether this is a reform effort aimed at taxpayer dollars or an infringement on local government influence.
Sen. Mayes Middleton of Galveston, one of the bill’s main proponents, argued that the legislation strengthens constituents’ voices by ensuring taxpayer money is not employed to support lobbyists who may not represent their interests.
“This bill grows the voice of our constituents, and money from the pockets of our taxpayers will no longer be taken by force and used to pay for lobbyists that undermine their interests,” Middleton stated.
If enacted, this law would prevent cities, counties, and school districts from hiring lobbyists or organizations that assist in navigating the extensive legislative process involving nearly 11,000 bills.
The Texas House will now review the bill for further consideration.
Critics of the bill underscore that the legislation would not target private businesses or special interest groups that can still expend their resources on lobbying efforts.
Furthermore, the legislation makes exceptions for law enforcement associations that hire lobbyists, as well as charter schools, which, while funded by public school dollars, operate independently.
Upon the bill’s passage, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick expressed his approval, stating that citizens do not want their tax dollars used to support lobbying firms.
“I have consistently advocated for and prioritized banning this practice, which leeches off taxpayers to their detriment,” Patrick said in a statement after the vote.
Governor Greg Abbott has also prioritized the elimination of taxpayer-funded lobbying during the special session, with similar proposals failing in previous legislative cycles, including the one that ended in June.
Middleton criticized local governments for hiring “middlemen” to lobby against issues that align with voter interests, like property tax reform and school choice.
While the bill does not prevent interest groups from aiding cities, counties, and schools in legislative tracking and analysis, it does restrict the hiring of external lobbyists.
Elected officials and their staff, however, are still allowed to advocate for or against issues in Austin, provided they are not registered lobbyists.
Some conservative critics have pointed to the city of Dallas and its lobbying activities concerning initiatives like solar power, electric vehicles, and diversity initiatives funded by taxpayer dollars.
Opponents of the legislation, representing public schools and municipalities, argue that this ban represents a form of censorship that diminishes their influence in policy-making.
Cal Jillson, a political science expert from Southern Methodist University, noted that local officials often lack the necessary technical expertise and relationships to effectively navigate the legislative process by themselves.
Many lobbyists historically possess significant experience, having held positions in powerful political offices or even in the governor’s office, and they bring valuable knowledge of the complex legislative system.
Opponents of the bill also express concern that the legislation will create an imbalanced situation, where wealthier entities can still hire lobbyists to promote their interests, leaving local governments at a disadvantage.
Sen. Nathan Johnson of Dallas articulated this view during the debate, implying that the new law would foster inequality in advocacy efforts.
Despite often being located far from the state capital and lacking ample resources, smaller and rural municipalities may feel the effects of this ban most acutely.
For instance, Dallas recently reported spending $794,000 on state lobbyists over two years and has successfully secured $233 million in state appropriations since 1995, which includes critical funding for services like homeless support, a new police academy, and restoration projects in Fair Park.
James Quintero of the Texas Public Policy Foundation raised concerns over Dallas’ employment of contract lobbyists while also operating a government affairs office and employing a state legislative director within the city attorney’s office.
As the bill transitions to the Texas House, discussions will likely continue over the implications of such restrictions and their potential impact on local governance.
image source from：dallasnews
