Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
Wednesday, the Texas Senate Committee on Finance delved into a contentious topic—its allocation of $200 million in taxpayer funds for the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program (TMIIIP), which provides financial incentives to film and television productions in the state. This program, commonly referred to as the film incentive program, has sparked a heated debate between advocates who believe it fosters economic growth and opponents who view it as corporate welfare.
Background of the TMIIIP
Established in 2007, the TMIIIP was created to attract film, television, video game, and other media production projects to Texas. The program offers rebates to productions based on the amount of money they spend in the state, with larger productions receiving a greater percentage back. Proponents argue that the incentives boost the local economy, create jobs, and elevate Texas’ status as a desirable location for media production.
Despite this, critics of the program, particularly fiscal conservatives, have long argued that the TMIIIP represents unnecessary government intervention in the private sector. They see it as a handout to wealthy film studios that, in many cases, would likely choose to film in Texas without government subsidies. They point to the growing film industries in states like Georgia, which offer even larger incentive packages, as evidence that Texas doesn’t need to match the same level of investment to attract projects.
The $200 million allocated for TMIIIP in the 2024-2025 state budget, a significant increase from previous years, has drawn intense scrutiny as Texas faces competing priorities in its spending plans.
Senate Testimony and Key Arguments
During the Finance Committee hearing, supporters of the film incentive program, including industry representatives and local businesses, testified about the positive impact the program has on Texas’ economy. Advocates argue that without these incentives, Texas would lose out on lucrative productions to other states offering similar or even larger financial packages. They cited examples of productions that had pumped millions of dollars into local economies, providing temporary but much-needed jobs for local workers, from electricians and carpenters to makeup artists and caterers.
Moreover, supporters claim that the presence of large-scale productions in Texas boosts the state’s tourism industry and promotes Texas’ cultural and geographical diversity to a global audience. By providing the necessary incentives, they argue, Texas can become a top-tier destination for media productions, competing with states like Georgia and California.
However, opponents of the program raised serious concerns during the review. Fiscal conservatives, including certain State Senators, criticized the use of taxpayer money to fund what they consider to be “Hollywood handouts.” These critics pointed to studies suggesting that the return on investment for film incentive programs is often overstated and that the jobs created by productions are temporary and do little to benefit the state’s long-term economy. Instead of creating sustainable industries, critics argue that the program prioritizes short-term gains at the expense of more pressing needs like infrastructure, education, or healthcare.
One point of contention was how these incentives are distributed. Opponents noted that large out-of-state studios disproportionately benefit from the rebates, while smaller Texas-based productions see little to no support. This disparity raises questions about whether the program is really designed to promote local talent or simply serves as a ‘cash cow’ for major production companies.
Transparency and Accountability Concerns
Another critical issue raised during the Senate review was transparency and accountability. Some lawmakers expressed concerns about how the $200 million would be tracked and whether sufficient oversight would ensure the money is spent effectively. There have been previous instances where productions took the incentive money and did not fulfill their promises of local job creation or economic benefit, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill without seeing any tangible returns.
To address these concerns, advocates of the program suggested tighter restrictions on how the funds are allocated and a more rigorous vetting process for productions seeking rebates. They proposed that future incentive packages prioritize projects that employ a higher percentage of Texas-based workers and support local businesses.
Potential Reforms and the Future of the Program
As the committee review unfolded, it became clear that some lawmakers were open to reforming the program rather than eliminating it altogether. A possible compromise would be to cap the amount of incentives available to individual productions, ensuring that large studios don’t consume the bulk of the funds. Additionally, lawmakers discussed the possibility of introducing stronger performance-based metrics that productions must meet to qualify for rebates.
These potential reforms indicate that while the film incentive program may not be dismantled, it is possible it would face stricter guidelines moving forward.
Broader Implications for Texas’ Economic Development
The debate over the TMIIIP touches on larger philosophical differences about the role of government in fostering economic growth. Supporters of the incentives see them as a necessary tool for attracting outside investment and creating jobs, while opponents argue that free-market principles should prevail, allowing industries to develop without government interference.
Republicans have held a majority in each chamber of the Texas Legislature and have held every statewide office for over two decades. The 2024 Republican Party of Texas Platform includes a plank opposed to corporate welfare and the TMIIP specifically:
78. No Corporate Welfare: We encourage government to divest its ownership of all businesses that should be run in the private sector. We oppose all bailouts of and subsidies to domestic and foreign government entities, states, and for all businesses, public and private. We agree with the Texas Constitution’s requirement for fair and uniform taxation and oppose special treatment or tax breaks for favored industries or companies. We call for repeal or sunset of existing subsidy or special-interest tax exemptions, including the Special Events Trust Fund program, the Texas Enterprise Fund, Moving Image Industry Incentive Program, and lab-grown meat incentives, and now request repeal of Chapter 403.601 of the Texas Tax Code. Tax dollars shall not be used to fund the building of stadiums for professional or semi-professional sports teams, unless otherwise approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those voting and only if 20% of all registered voters in the district cast ballots.”
In the most recent legislative session (2023), State Rep. Four Price (R-Amarillo) authored legislation seeking to establish the Texas Multimedia Production Program, aiming to provide tax credits to production companies that produce multimedia projects, such as films, television programs, or commercials, within the state. The legislation successfully passed through the House Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Toursim Commmittee unanimously but was ultimately postponed several times while being considered by the overall Texas House of Representatives and as such had its legislative prospects cut short. Similarly, the same version of the legislation in the Texas Senate, authored by State Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) was given a public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development but ultimately left pending and never considered.
Conclusion
The Texas Senate Committee on Finance review of the $200 million film incentive program has brought to the forefront a critical discussion about the state’s priorities and the role of government in economic development. Lawmakers face the decision of whether to continue funding a program that many argue is essential for keeping Texas competitive in the media production industry or cut back on incentives that critics say amount to corporate welfare.
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!
