Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
For years, the Texas Legislature has flirted with banning taxpayer-funded lobbying, a practice where local governments use public dollars to lobby state lawmakers for more money, more autonomy, or fewer restrictions. Despite overwhelming support from voters across the political spectrum, the issue has repeatedly died in the Texas House of Representatives. Now, during the first-called special legislative session, the debate is back and hotter than ever.
On July 21, 2025, the 89th Texas Legislature gaveled in for its first-called special session. In his call for a special session, Governor Greg Abbott (R) placed the ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying squarely on the agenda. In the Senate, Senate Bill 12, authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), marks the latest attempt to address the issue. With a Republican-controlled Senate likely to pass the bill again, the spotlight is now firmly on the Texas House.
Why Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Needs to End
To many Texans, the term “taxpayer-funded lobbying” might sound like lobbyists working on behalf of taxpayers, but the reality is something entirely different and far more insidious. Under current law, local governments, including cities, counties, school districts, and other political subdivisions, routinely use tax dollars to hire lobbyists and pay dues to associations like the Texas Municipal League or the Texas Association of School Boards. These groups turn around and use those funds to lobby the Legislature for more spending, looser oversight, and fewer restraints on local authority.
According to estimates, Texas local governments collectively spend up to $100 million every session on this practice. That’s $100 million that could go to fixing roads, hiring police officers, paying teachers, or offering real property tax relief. Instead, it funds a small army of lobbyists who wine and dine lawmakers, push for regulatory expansion, and often stand in direct opposition to the interests of the very people footing the bill.
Supporters of the status quo argue that this is the only way local governments, especially rural communities, can have a voice in Austin, but that argument doesn’t hold up. Local elected officials have every right to contact lawmakers directly, just as their own constituents do. They can pick up the phone, testify in hearings, or even assign staff to handle legislative matters in-house. What taxpayer-funded lobbying allows them to do is outsource that work to private lobbyists who operate with little transparency and often wield significant influence behind closed doors. Those activities aren’t just expensive, they are ethically suspect.
Critics call it government lobbying government for more government, and they are not wrong.
Recapping Efforts in the 89th Regular Session
Earlier this year, during the 89th Regular Session, two major bills sought to end the practice. Senate Bill 19, authored by Middleton, passed the Senate but was successfully amended by State Sen. Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) to allow nonprofit associations that represent local governments to continue hiring lobbyists. That carve-out diluted the bill’s original purpose and gave lobby associations just enough cover to continue business as usual.
Despite passing the Senate, SB 19 stalled once it reached the House, where it was referred to the House State Affairs Committee, chaired by State Rep. Ken King (R-Canadian), who had previously signed a pledge before the session promising to support a ban. The bill, however, never received a hearing in his committee. It was the fourth consecutive session that legislation to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying failed to advance in the House.
On the House side, State Rep. Mike Olcott (R-Aledo) filed House Bill 3257, which mirrored the unamended version of SB 19. The bill had strong support from grassroots conservatives and transparency advocates, but it too went nowhere. Despite being referred to committee, HB 3257 never advanced, and was yet another casualty in the long-running effort to rein in this taxpayer abuse. Similarly, State Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco) filed House Bill 4860, which met the same fate.
This pattern is nothing new. For multiple sessions, the Senate has acted while the House has blocked reform behind closed doors.
What’s in SB 12? A Sharper, Cleaner Version of the Ban
SB 12, filed at the start of the special session, represents a refined and more enforceable version of the ban. The bill clearly prohibits political subdivisions from using public funds to hire or contract with registered lobbyists, or from paying dues to any association that employs them. The only exception applies to associations that solely represent elected sheriffs or individual law enforcement officers, a narrow carveout that avoids the broader exemptions that weakened SB 19.
Further, unlike prior attempts, SB 12 puts real enforcement teeth into the law. Any taxpayer or resident of a political subdivision can bring a lawsuit to halt prohibited activity, and if successful, they’re entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. This provision alone makes it far more likely that violations will be challenged and corrected quickly.
The bill also ensures that contracts including unlawful lobbying provisions are declared void as of the law’s effective date. That kind of hard stop closes a common loophole, where entities sign multi-year contracts just before a ban takes effect. At the same time, the bill preserves the right for local officials and employees to engage directly with lawmakers. They can still speak with legislators, testify before committees, and provide information, so long as their activity doesn’t cross the threshold requiring lobbyist registration under Chapter 305.
In short, SB 12 is designed to ban the abusive use of taxpayer funds, not to silence public servants.
Comparing SB 12 to SB 19 and HB 3257
While SB 12 shares many of the same goals as SB 19 and HB 3257, it is far less vulnerable to the carveouts and dilution that killed those efforts because it removes ambiguity around who is covered and clarifies enforcement.
The core components remain consistent across all three bills: no more public funds for contract lobbyists or lobbying dues, continued allowance for basic legislative engagement by officials, and clear enforcement mechanisms. But SB 12 may stand a better chance during this special session because it was written with past failures in mind.
The political environment has also shifted. Governor Abbott included the issue on his special session agenda. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) has long championed the ban, and Texas voters have made their views clear time and again.
Will the House Finally Act?
That’s the million-dollar question, or perhaps more accurately, the hundred-million-dollar question.
House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) has previously voiced support for banning taxpayer-funded lobbying, even authoring previous legislative attempts. He previously signed a pledge endorsing it ahead of the 89th Legislative Session, but under his leadership, the Texas House failed to follow through. With the Governor’s support and the Senate poised to act yet again, pressure is building. If the House stalls again, the message to voters will be unmistakable: protecting taxpayer money isn’t as important as protecting entrenched interests.
With so much momentum and so much money at stake, House lawmakers will face extreme scrutiny if they allow this bill to quietly die again.
As of the publishing of this article, the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee passed SB 12 unanimously. The overall Senate will likely consider the bill in the coming days.
The Time for Accountability Has Arrived
Texans aren’t asking for a radical idea. They’re only demanding we follow a basic principle: stop using public dollars to fund political influence operations that serve government institutions instead of the people they represent.
The case for banning taxpayer-funded lobbying has never been clearer: It wastes resources, it distorts the legislative process, and it undermines trust in government. With SB 12 on the table, lawmakers have a chance to finally deliver a win for transparency, accountability, and responsible spending.
If the House fails again, it won’t be for lack of public support or sound policy. It will be a sign that the House clearly supports special interests more than taxpayers.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
