According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1718 is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal implication for the State of Texas. The bill expands the eligibility list under the Major Events Reimbursement Program (MERP) to include the National Rifle Association's Annual Meetings and Exhibits, as well as other similar annual NRA events. However, the Legislative Budget Board assumes that any costs incurred by implementing the bill could be absorbed using existing resources without requiring additional appropriations or budget adjustments.

From the perspective of local governments, the bill also does not present a significant fiscal impact. Local jurisdictions that opt to host NRA events would remain eligible to apply for reimbursements through MERP, but the bill does not mandate any expenditures at the local level. Participation in MERP remains voluntary and contingent on local entities' decision to pursue and host qualifying events.

In summary, while SB 1718 potentially opens the door for future reimbursements tied to NRA-related events, the fiscal analysis suggests that existing administrative capacity and budgeted funds within the Governor’s Office Trusteed Programs are sufficient to handle any new obligations created by the bill. Thus, the expansion in event eligibility is not expected to create a measurable increase in spending or resource allocation in the current budget outlook.

SB 1718 proposes to expand the eligibility of the Major Events Reimbursement Program (MERP) to include the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meetings and Exhibits or other similar annual NRA events. Proponents argue that the NRA's events bring significant economic benefits to Texas cities through increased hotel stays, tourism spending, and job creation. However, the bill fundamentally expands the scope of a government program that already raises significant concerns for fiscal conservatives, limited government advocates, and those committed to free enterprise.

This bill represents a clear expansion of government scope. While it does not establish a new agency or levy a direct tax, it broadens the authority of the Governor’s Office to distribute state funds to politically aligned, private membership organizations under the guise of economic development. In doing so, it normalizes a form of corporate and ideological subsidy that risks turning MERP into a vehicle for partisan favoritism, further distorting the free market.

Though the Legislative Budget Board estimates no significant fiscal impact and suggests that costs could be absorbed using existing resources, SB 1718 does increase the potential taxpayer burden. Every event added to the MERP list competes for reimbursement dollars derived from public funds. This sets a precedent for expanding the pool of qualifying events, ultimately pulling more tax revenue into a discretionary subsidy pipeline that benefits private groups, many of which could be ideologically divisive. Even if this doesn't raise taxes directly, it reallocates taxpayer dollars away from core services toward politically selected economic incentives.

Importantly, the bill does not add regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses. But by enhancing the programmatic footprint of MERP, it deepens the administrative and fiscal entanglement between government and private affairs, precisely the kind of government expansion that limited-government principles seek to avoid.

Rather than sunsetting or narrowing the program, SB 1718 extends its reach and embeds it more deeply into Texas's economic development strategy. For all these reasons—expansion of state power, taxpayer exposure, and philosophical inconsistency with limited government—Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1718.

• Individual Liberty: The bill neither restricts nor enhances individual freedoms in the traditional civil liberties sense. Some may argue that supporting events like the NRA's convention promotes a culture of gun rights and Second Amendment awareness, aligning with a pro-liberty ethos. However, because this support comes in the form of public subsidies rather than deregulation or individual protections, it does not expand liberty in a meaningful or structural way. Additionally, using public funds to benefit a politically affiliated group could inadvertently chill equal access or give the appearance of state endorsement, creating an ideological imbalance in public policy.
• Personal Responsibility: By allocating public resources to underwrite a private, membership-based organization's events, the bill undermines the principle that organizations and individuals should be self-sustaining and accountable for their own financial viability. If the NRA Annual Meeting provides enough economic value to justify its costs, it should do so without state assistance. This bill encourages dependence on government incentives rather than promoting private initiative and market-driven event planning—a shift away from the ethos of self-reliance and responsible resource stewardship.
• Free Enterprise: By subsidizing a specific event from a politically active organization, the bill distorts the market. It creates a tilted playing field where some large, well-connected private entities can access public funds, while others, especially smaller, non-ideological, or less favored organizations, do not. This favoritism undermines genuine free-market competition. Rather than allowing supply, demand, and consumer preference to determine the success of events, the government is picking winners, which is fundamentally inconsistent with free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not impact individual or commercial property rights. There are no takings, regulations, or restrictions imposed on private landowners or businesses. However, if viewed broadly, one could argue that taxpayer funds are being used to indirectly benefit private interests, which may raise philosophical concerns about the proper role of public resources in supporting private endeavors.
• Limited Government: The bill clearly expands the scope of government involvement in economic activity by adding new eligible events to the Major Events Reimbursement Program (MERP). Even though it doesn’t grow bureaucracy outright, it increases the discretion and activity level of the state in choosing which private organizations receive taxpayer-backed financial support. This expansion violates the principle that government should remain small, neutral, and restrained, focusing on protecting rights rather than managing the economy or promoting specific private agendas.

• HB 2385 (Same As)