According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1299 is expected to have no significant fiscal implications for the state. The measure primarily restricts public agencies from collecting or disclosing personal affiliation information related to nonprofit organizations, except in limited, legally defined circumstances. While the bill creates a new Class B misdemeanor offense for violations and permits individuals to seek injunctive relief through civil actions, these provisions are not anticipated to substantially increase court or correctional system costs.

The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) noted that the bill’s provisions do not apply to Medicaid, as they conflict with existing federal and state Medicaid requirements. However, HHSC anticipates that any adjustments to internal policies or forms can be managed using existing resources. Similarly, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) may need to evaluate its practices to ensure compliance, but it also foresees no fiscal impact from implementing the bill.

At the local level, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for cities, counties, or other local units of government. Costs related to enforcement, prosecution, or supervision are expected to be minimal and manageable within current budgets. The bill's revenue impact, such as from civil filing fees or damages, cannot be precisely determined due to the unpredictability of how many civil cases might arise under the new law.

SB 1299 presents a strong and constitutionally grounded effort to protect the privacy of Texans who support or participate in nonprofit organizations. By prohibiting public agencies from collecting, disclosing, or compelling disclosure of personal affiliation information, the bill reinforces First Amendment protections of free association and shields individuals from potential harassment or political retaliation. Its structure is clear, its remedies are well-defined—including civil and criminal penalties—and it aligns with a national trend among states enacting similar protections.

However, while the bill's intent is sound, two exceptions—Sections 3001.003(2) and 3001.003(3)—could unintentionally undermine the core protections the bill is designed to establish. The first, which relates to subpoenas, is overly broad because Texas law permits attorneys to issue subpoenas under the authority of a court without judicial review. This could allow sensitive affiliation information to be accessed without a showing of necessity or relevance. The second, relating to reports filed under Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) rules, could allow the TEC to mandate expansive disclosures through rulemaking, well beyond the statutory requirements for campaign finance or lobbying transparency.

Suggested Amendments:

• Clarify Exception for Subpoenas (Section 3001.003(3)): The language allows disclosure of affiliation information when compelled by a subpoena “issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.” However, in Texas, attorneys may issue subpoenas in the name of the court without judicial review. This could create a loophole permitting access to sensitive data without a showing of necessity. An amendment would ensure that any subpoena compelling disclosure must receive actual judicial scrutiny, aligning it more closely with the heightened standard for discovery in Section 3001.003(4).
• Narrow Exception for Ethics Reporting (Section 3001.003(2)): This provision broadly exempts “a report required to be filed under Title 15, Election Code, under a rule of the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC), or by a person required to register as a lobbyist.” The breadth of the TEC’s rulemaking authority could allow for expansive and unforeseen disclosures that circumvent the bill’s privacy protections. An amendment would ensure that any subpoena compelling disclosure must receive actual judicial scrutiny, aligning it more closely with the heightened standard for discovery in Section 3001.003(4).

Though Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1299, we also strongly suggest it be amended to ensure that its exceptions do not create exploitable loopholes. Narrowing the subpoena exception to require court approval, and limiting the TEC-related exception to statutorily mandated reports concerning campaign finance or lobbying, would maintain the integrity of the bill while preserving essential public accountability mechanisms. With these changes, SB 1299 would be a well-balanced and robust protection of civic privacy in Texas.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly enhances individual liberty by protecting Texans’ freedom of association and privacy in civic engagement. It ensures that individuals can support, volunteer for, or donate to nonprofit organizations without fear of public exposure, retaliation, or compelled disclosure by government entities. This protection reflects a long-standing constitutional tradition, dating back to NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which affirms that compelled disclosure of association chills First Amendment rights. By shielding affiliation data from public agencies, the bill fortifies the right to participate privately in civil society.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill neither expands nor diminishes personal responsibility. It allows individuals to support causes privately without undue interference but does not shift responsibility for outcomes or behaviors to others. It respects voluntary action without mandating participation or government intervention.
• Free Enterprise: The bill indirectly supports free enterprise by protecting the privacy and integrity of the nonprofit sector, which plays a vital role in civil society, economic development, education, and innovation. By shielding donors and supporters from exposure, the bill encourages philanthropic giving and volunteerism, allowing nonprofits to thrive without the chilling effect of political or social pressures. A strong nonprofit ecosystem complements market activity and expands opportunity in ways aligned with voluntary cooperation and minimal coercion.
• Private Property Rights: Although not directly tied to tangible property, the bill supports informational privacy as a component of personal autonomy and ownership of one’s affiliations and identity. The right to control who knows about your charitable or civic activities is conceptually aligned with the principle of private property, especially as modern concerns about data privacy increasingly implicate ownership of personal information.
• Limited Government: The bill significantly limits the scope of government power by restricting public agencies from collecting, demanding, or disclosing personal affiliation information, except in narrow, legally defined circumstances. It also includes civil and criminal penalties for violations, creating an enforceable check against bureaucratic or political abuse. This aligns with the liberty principle that government should be tightly constrained, particularly in matters involving sensitive personal or political information.

• HB 2892 (Same As)