According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 946 are minimal. The analysis concludes that there is no significant fiscal implication to the State. This suggests that implementing the bill’s provisions will not require additional appropriations or major changes to existing agency operations.

Specifically, the fiscal note assumes that any costs associated with enforcement or administrative oversight could be absorbed using existing resources. The primary agency referenced, the Office of the Attorney General, is expected to manage any responsibilities under this legislation, such as potential legal inquiries or compliance matters, without needing supplemental funding or staffing increases.

At the local level, the legislation is similarly neutral in fiscal impact. No significant fiscal implication is anticipated for units of local government, implying that municipalities, counties, or regional financial regulatory bodies will not face new mandates or resource burdens due to this bill. This reinforces the bill’s characterization as a regulatory clarification rather than a new enforcement regime requiring substantial public investment.

SB 946, as substituted, aims to close a perceived gap in Texas's anti-discrimination protections by extending safeguards against credit discrimination to organizations. While current law prohibits individual discrimination based on factors like race, sex, or religion, it does not prevent lenders from denying credit to organizations based on subjective political or ideological standards. This bill addresses that concern by prohibiting lenders from using non-financial, value-based criteria—such as ESG (environmental, social, governance) scores, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) practices, or associations with lawful but controversial industries like fossil fuels or firearms—as a basis for denying or limiting credit.

The policy intent, as clarified in the bill analysis, is to ensure that lending decisions are based strictly on neutral, financial risk assessments rather than subjective judgments or ideological pressure. This promotes fairness and viewpoint neutrality, particularly for businesses or nonprofits aligned with politically sensitive causes or industries. Importantly, the bill does not impose new rulemaking authority or regulatory burdens on state agencies, and the Legislative Budget Board anticipates no significant fiscal impact on the state or local governments.

From a liberty-oriented standpoint, SB 946 reinforces key principles including Free Enterprise, Individual Liberty, and Limited Government. It defends the right of businesses and nonprofits to operate without fear of economic exclusion due to their beliefs or associations, while ensuring financial institutions remain focused on objective credit risk, not ideological conformity. Given the minimal fiscal burden, clear legislative intent, and strong alignment with constitutional protections and marketplace fairness, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 946.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill primarily targets protections for organizations rather than individuals, it reinforces individual liberty by shielding entities, many of which are expressions of collective personal beliefs (e.g., religious nonprofits, advocacy groups, or small businesses), from discrimination based on viewpoint or association. Preventing lenders from penalizing individuals or organizations for exercising constitutionally protected rights such as free speech, religious affiliation, or lawful industry participation protects the broader framework of liberty that supports civil society.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill ensures that access to credit markets remains open and competitive by preventing ideological or politically motivated gatekeeping from financial institutions. By barring discrimination based on non-financial factors like ESG scores or DEI policies, the bill restores market neutrality and protects the rights of businesses in lawful industries to compete fairly. This safeguards the fundamental tenet of free enterprise: that business success should be determined by market performance, not political alignment or social values imposed by lenders.
• Free Enterprise: Access to credit is often essential to acquiring, developing, or retaining private property, whether in the form of land, equipment, or capital improvements. By preventing unjustified credit denials to organizations based on ideological criteria, the bill protects the right to engage in lawful economic activity that supports the use and expansion of property. Organizations in sectors such as agriculture, fossil fuels, or firearms—frequently targeted by ESG-based exclusion—benefit froma  more secure financial footing to maintain or grow their property interests.
• Private Property Rights: The bill introduces a new regulatory restriction on private lenders by dictating what criteria may not be used in credit decisions. On the surface, this may seem to expand government oversight into private transactions. However, it can also be viewed as a protective limitation on quasi-regulatory behavior by financial institutions, which have increasingly acted as private enforcers of ideological standards. From this angle, the bill preserves a sphere of individual and organizational freedom that was being constrained by private entities with public-like influence over capital access.
• Limited Government: The bill does not directly address individual behavior or the consequences of personal choices. It neither incentivizes nor discourages responsible economic conduct but instead focuses on external standards used in credit evaluations. As such, its effect on personal responsibility is minimal or neutral.