According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1845 will have no significant fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The bill, which amends the Government Code to require lobbyist registration for individuals working on behalf of foreign adversaries and prohibits compensation for such lobbying, does not necessitate major operational changes for state agencies.

According to the Office of Court Administration, the bill would not impose a substantial fiscal burden on the court system, suggesting any litigation or enforcement related to civil penalties would be minimal or absorbed within current capacities. Similarly, the Office of the Attorney General anticipates no meaningful cost impact from the bill’s implementation or enforcement.

The Comptroller of Public Accounts reports that there would be no administrative costs to its office, although it notes that any broader fiscal impact on state revenue (e.g., through penalties) is indeterminate at this time. Furthermore, the Texas Ethics Commission, which would likely handle the registration and oversight duties under the bill, expects no significant financial strain on its operations.

At the local level, no meaningful fiscal effect is projected for cities, counties, or other political subdivisions. Overall, the bill is considered fiscally neutral, with the cost of implementation and compliance expected to be minimal or fully manageable within existing resources.

SB 1845 is a carefully targeted response to the growing concern over foreign interference in state governance, with specific attention paid to actors tied to foreign adversaries. By amending the Texas Government Code to require lobbyists representing such foreign interests to register with the Texas Ethics Commission—and by prohibiting them from receiving compensation—the bill seeks to close a significant oversight gap in the state’s current lobbying regulations. The accompanying civil penalties and enforcement powers granted to the Texas Attorney General bolster the bill’s deterrent effect, offering a strong but balanced approach to national security concerns at the state level​.

This legislation aligns strongly with liberty principles, particularly in protecting individual liberty and state sovereignty from covert foreign influence while maintaining the right to political expression and association for those not representing hostile entities. The bill does not criminalize speech but simply introduces transparency and accountability when lobbying involves designated adversaries. It promotes personal responsibility by holding individuals accountable for their financial ties to foreign powers and reinforces limited government by utilizing existing agencies and civil remedies rather than expanding bureaucratic reach.

From a fiscal perspective, the bill is also prudent. As noted in the fiscal note, it is not expected to result in significant new expenditures for state or local governments, and any costs associated with enforcement are likely to be minimal and manageable within current budgets.

Given its thoughtful construction, minimal fiscal impact, and strong alignment with both liberty and security values, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 184. It responsibly updates the state’s lobbying framework in a way that fortifies public trust and strengthens legislative integrity.

• Individual Liberty: The bill carefully targets lobbying activity conducted on behalf of foreign adversaries without infringing on Texans' constitutional rights to free speech, petition, or association. It does not ban political advocacy or expression; instead, it requires disclosure and prohibits financial compensation from hostile foreign entities. By focusing only on individuals acting on behalf of foreign adversaries as defined by federal law (15 C.F.R. § 791.4), the bill maintains the legal space for lawful advocacy while safeguarding Texas policymaking from covert foreign influence, thereby preserving, rather than restricting, democratic self-governance.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the notion that individuals who seek to influence legislation should be held accountable for their affiliations and sources of compensation. By requiring registration and prohibiting payments from adversarial entities, it promotes ethical behavior and transparency in political advocacy. Those who violate these provisions face civil penalties and potential injunctive actions, reflecting a system where consequences are tied to choices—an essential component of personal responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill introduces a restriction on receiving compensation for certain lobbying activities, it does so narrowly and only in cases where the payor is a foreign adversary. This is not a general restraint on commerce or lobbying but a targeted national-security safeguard. In this context, the bill is compatible with the free enterprise system, as it protects the integrity of the policy environment in which businesses operate. However, care must be taken to ensure that the definitions and enforcement mechanisms remain narrow and precise to avoid overreach that could unintentionally chill legitimate business advocacy involving international interests.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not touch on the ownership, control, or use of private property. It regulates public conduct related to governmental advocacy rather than individual property rights, so this liberty principle remains unaffected.
• Limited Government: The bill enhances enforcement capabilities without expanding bureaucratic infrastructure. It uses existing institutions—the Texas Ethics Commission and the Attorney General’s office—for compliance and enforcement. The remedies it provides (civil penalties and injunctive relief) are proportional and civil in nature, avoiding criminalization. This targeted, minimalistic approach reflects a restrained use of government power that is consistent with the principle of limited government.

• HB 119 (Same As)