Senate takes up bill to ban taxpayer‑funded lobbying by political subdivisions; debate centers on local control and definitions

Senate Bill 13 would prohibit political subdivisions and other local public entities from using public funds to pay for lobbying activities. Sponsor Senator Middleton framed the bill as ending ‘‘taxpayer‑funded lobbying’’ and said the practice uses public dollars to lobby against taxpayers’ wishes.

Sponsor argument and procedural outcome Middleton argued the practice is ‘‘forced speech’’ and cited examples where local associations allegedly opposed local elected officials’ positions; he characterized the measure as restoring ‘‘the voice of our taxpayers.’’ The Senate suspended the rules to take up SB 13 and passed second‑reading procedural votes (roll calls recorded 18 ayes, 12 nays) and passed the bill to engrossment in that form.

Key questions and floor amendments Senators raised questions on definitions (which entities qualify as political subdivisions), whether charter schools and certain associations would be covered and whether the ban would interfere with contractual obligations. Several floor amendments were proposed: an amendment to include open‑enrollment charter schools failed; other amendments seeking to preserve existing contracts or to rely on the Texas Ethics Commission for enforcement failed; an amendment to allow local governing‑body approval of expenditures also failed.

Supporters vs. critics Supporters said associations can continue to exist and that the bill targets public funding for professional, registered lobbyists rather than citizen advocacy. Critics — including county officials and senators from larger jurisdictions — warned the bill could remove an efficient, pooled means for smaller counties and cities to monitor legislation, forcing individual officials to travel to Austin or rely on paid private interests for representation.

Ending SB 13 passed second‑reading maneuvers and was sent to engrossment; the transcript shows several proposed amendments and recorded procedural votes. The debate highlighted a tradeoff between preventing use of public funds for paid lobbyists and preserving coordinated representation by associations that serve local governments.