According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 945 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill's requirements, which prohibit insurers and insurance holding companies from including or implementing certain types of political shareholder proposals, are not anticipated to require new state programs, additional personnel, or substantial regulatory oversight. It is assumed that any administrative or enforcement responsibilities can be managed by the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) within its existing budget and resources.

Likewise, the bill poses no significant fiscal implications for local governments. Since the regulation of insurers and their internal governance practices occurs at the state level, SB 945 does not impose mandates or costs on cities, counties, or other political subdivisions. The bill is administrative in nature and targets corporate governance processes within private insurance entities rather than imposing broader public sector duties.

In summary, SB 945 is considered fiscally neutral and does not necessitate new appropriations or impose financial burdens on state or local governmental bodies.

SB 945 should be supported as it strengthens free enterprise and limited government by prohibiting Texas insurers and insurance holding companies from adopting or advancing shareholder proposals that serve political, environmental, or social goals unrelated to the core financial operations of insurance. The bill addresses a growing trend in corporate governance — the use of shareholder proposals to pressure companies into aligning with ESG (environmental, social, governance) policy agendas. The author’s intent highlights that insurers have increasingly been targeted with demands to curtail fossil fuel underwriting or track greenhouse gas emissions, which could lead to discrimination against otherwise lawful industries based solely on ideological grounds.

From a liberty perspective, SB 945 aligns closely with the principles of free enterprise and personal responsibility. It protects companies from being compelled, via shareholder activism, to adopt positions that could compromise sound underwriting practices or market neutrality. This ensures that insurers base their decisions on risk, profitability, and market demand rather than political pressures. While some may argue this limits shareholder rights, the bill narrowly targets proposals that seek to control lawful corporate activity through ideological aims, which can disrupt market efficiency and capital allocation.

Importantly, the bill has no significant fiscal impact on state or local governments and does not delegate new regulatory authority to any agency. It is a restraint not on the market, but on efforts to politicize it via internal governance mechanisms.

In summary, SB 945 protects market integrity and reins in ideologically motivated shareholder activism within the insurance sector, making it a principled and fiscally neutral proposal that upholds key Texas liberty values. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 945.

• Individual Liberty: The bill indirectly protects individual liberty by safeguarding economic actors — in this case, insurers and their policyholders — from coercive influence via corporate governance. While it limits the ability of some shareholders to bring proposals, those limitations apply narrowly to proposals aimed at altering the insurer’s activities for political purposes. It strikes a balance between shareholder engagement and corporate autonomy, preserving liberty for a broader set of stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, and investors) from being bound by minority political agendas.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the idea that corporate boards and executives should be held accountable for running companies responsibly and profitably, rather than becoming platforms for political expression. By blocking proposals that mandate certain political or environmental outcomes, the bill encourages insurers to take responsibility for their core function — risk assessment and financial stability — and discourages them from becoming vehicles for activism. This aligns with the concept that individuals and entities should be responsible for their actions and outcomes, not diverted by external social engineering.
• Free Enterprise: This is the principle most clearly advanced by the bill. The bill defends insurers’ ability to operate based on financial risk models rather than political or ideological agendas. It ensures that companies cannot be compelled through internal shareholder mechanisms to refuse coverage to fossil fuel industries or adopt costly, ESG-style initiatives. By protecting insurers from activist interference, the bill upholds a market-oriented insurance environment where underwriting decisions remain grounded in business fundamentals, not external ideological pressure. This directly supports a competitive, apolitical business environment.
• Private Property Rights: Shareholders do have property rights through ownership stakes, but those rights do not include forcing a company to act against its lawful business interests. The bill makes clear that certain political proposals, which may limit coverage to lawful energy sectors or enforce social policy via underwriting, are beyond the scope of ordinary shareholder influence. In doing so, it affirms that the rights of the corporation (as a legal entity) and its broader shareholder base include the right to conduct business free of compelled ideological alignment.
• Limited Government: Although the bill introduces a new statutory prohibition, it does not expand regulatory oversight or delegate new enforcement authority to state agencies. Rather, it places a boundary around a growing practice — political shareholder activism — that lawmakers argue threatens the economic neutrality of the insurance sector. The bill represents a defensive use of state authority to preserve depoliticized market operations, consistent with the ideal that the government’s role is to secure liberty and ensure fair rules, not to manage business ideologies.