Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes
As the 89th Texas Legislative Session barrels toward its conclusion, lawmakers have advanced one of the most controversial spending proposals of the year: Senate Bill 22 (SB 22), legislation that overhauls and dramatically expands the state’s film and multimedia incentive program.
Marketed as a plan to turn Texas into the “New Hollywood,” SB 22 would direct up to $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds over the next six years to subsidize film, television, and video game productions. But beneath the surface of economic development rhetoric lies a serious debate about government overreach, ideological control, and the distortion of free enterprise.
What SB 22 Actually Does
Authored by State Sen. Joan Huffman (R–Houston) and carried in the House by State Rep. Todd Hunter (R–Corpus Christi), SB 22 creates the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Fund, housed outside the state treasury and administered by the Governor’s Music, Film, Television, and Multimedia Office.
The bill is designed to be flexible and expansive. It allows the Governor’s Office wide discretion to determine which productions qualify for support, provided they meet certain criteria: namely, that they don’t portray Texas or Texans in a negative light, and they don’t include “obscene” or “politically charged” content. That level of discretion has raised both hope and concern.
Proponents say these provisions act as necessary “guardrails” to ensure that taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund content that undermines Texas values or embarrasses the state. Critics, however, worry that such discretion could be wielded arbitrarily or unevenly, possibly favoring certain viewpoints over others.
Content Control: The Ideological Gatekeeping Clause
Perhaps the most contentious part of SB 22 is its content-based grant review structure.
The bill allows the Governor’s Office to deny or rescind grants if a project portrays Texas or Texans “in a negative fashion” or violates undefined “standards of decency and respect.” Additionally, a two-stage review, preliminary and post-production, gives the state even more control over artistic content.
Supporters call these guardrails. Opponents call them ideological filters that chill speech and pressure creators to conform to a state-approved narrative.
Where the Money Comes From
State Rep. Todd Hunter repeatedly emphasized during floor debate that SB 22 is “not the money bill”—that the actual funding mechanism was already included in the budget bill passed earlier in the session. In other words, the Legislature has already decided to allocate these dollars; SB 22 is simply codifying the rules around how they’re used.
That said, the program’s original version called for up to $500 million per biennium, a number Hunter later amended to $300 million in response to concerns about “fuzzy math” and backchannel budget negotiations. Even with the lowered figure, it still represents a significant investment of taxpayer funds into a single industry—an industry whose ideological leanings and cultural influence have made it a lightning rod among conservatives.
Limited Oversight, Expanded Bureaucracy
A key structural concern is the fund’s location outside the state treasury, meaning it operates with less direct legislative scrutiny. Once sales tax revenue is diverted into the fund, the Legislature has no further control over how it’s used.
This kind of quasi-autonomous, discretionary fund undermines the principle of limited government and creates a precedent for massive off-budget expenditures in politically favored industries.
A Cultural and Fiscal Flashpoint
The bill’s critics didn’t hold back during debate. State Rep. David Lowe (R–North Richland Hills) emerged as one of its most outspoken opponents, calling SB 22 a “Hollywood handout” and accusing the industry it supports of mocking Christian values, vilifying opposition to gender transitions for minors, and trashing Texans for conservative views.
“This is also the same industry that trashed us for supporting President Trump, mocked us for standing up for the unborn, vilified us for opposing gender transitions for children, and ridiculed our Christian faith at every opportunity,” said Lowe. “And now we are expected to trust them to produce family-friendly content and reimburse them $2.5 billion over the next decade?”
Other opponents raised questions about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and market interference. If Texas is truly committed to letting the free market thrive, why does it need to subsidize Hollywood, especially when other sectors go without?
In total, 26 Republican House lawmakers voted against SB 22.
Hollywood Comes to Texas—or Texas Funds Hollywood?
Proponents of the bill, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and major celebrities like Matthew McConaughey and Taylor Sheridan, say the bill is essential for Texas to compete with other states, particularly Georgia and New Mexico, which have well-established film incentive programs.
State Rep. Todd Hunter insisted the bill “isn’t Hollywood coming to Texas. This is Texas taking over Hollywood.” He cited local economic impacts from shows like The Chosen and Fixer Upper that helped revitalize small towns and generate economic activity.
Supporters also noted that competing states like Georgia and New Mexico have successfully lured productions away from Texas with generous subsidies, suggesting that if Texas wants a piece of that economic pie, it needs to play the game.
But at What Cost?
That rationale hasn’t won over everyone. Many fiscal conservatives see this as a classic case of corporate welfare, taxpayer dollars being handed to wealthy entertainment companies who could afford to film in Texas without government help. Texas Policy Research strongly recommended that lawmakers vote against SB 22.
It’s also worth noting that economic studies on film subsidies are mixed at best. While some point to temporary job creation and local spending boosts, others argue that the return on investment is minimal, especially when compared to long-term investments in infrastructure, education, or property tax relief.
Furthermore, when the government picks winners and losers in the economy, especially in industries as ideologically charged as entertainment, it risks alienating taxpayers and undermining the principles of limited government.
What Happens Next?
The Senate concurred with House amendments on Wednesday, which means it will shortly head to Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) desk for a signature or veto.
Given the bill’s high-profile support from Lt. Gov. Patrick and big-name celebrities, as well as its passage with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House (114-26), the legislation seems likely to become law.
Still, it’s a revealing litmus test for the direction Texas is heading. Is the state leaning into crony capitalism under the banner of economic development? Or can it truly shape an entertainment industry that aligns with its values and puts Texans to work?
Only time and audits will tell.
The Bottom Line
Senate Bill 22 is a high-dollar gamble on Hollywood, dressed in Texas boots and a hat. Supporters see a smart investment in jobs and image-building. Detractors, including us, see cultural capitulation and corporate welfare.
Whether you view it as economic development or ideological betrayal, one thing is clear: the Texas Legislature just made a $1.5 billion bet on the entertainment industry. Let’s hope the credits are worth the cost.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
