For several years now, certain factions have been vocal in their call to “ban taxpayer-funded lobbying.” Out-of-context and on a flashy political ad, this may sound like a good idea, but when analyzing the issue from various angles, it turns out that such a proposal would be detrimental to our representative form of government. To give a better understanding of the topic, several questions need to be answered.
“Lobbying” has become a dirty verb. Many seem to see lobbying as an evil force influencing the Legislature to perform nefarious acts to harm society. In reality, lobbying simply means advocating. For example, the Texas Farm Bureau Agfund advocates (lobbies) for more than 500,000 farm and ranch member families. Very few of these rural citizens would have the time or financial resources to advocate for themselves.
Essentially, taxpayer-funded lobbying is when one governmental agency seeks to influence another governmental body. Typically in Texas, this happens when smaller governments, that cannot afford full-time paid intergovernmental staff, use a lobbyist to advocate for their needs with the Texas Legislature. School boards, cities, counties, and other types of local political subdivisions use lobbyists (primarily through associations) to bring specific local needs to the attention of legislators, to encourage the legislature to act in a way that improves the lives of local citizens, and to maintain meaningful professional relationships between the local and state governments. When a political subdivision enters a contract with a consultant, the political subdivision is required to disclose that they are engaging in lobbying activities, and these expenditures are reported to the Texas Ethics Commission.
Fringe, special interest lobbyists want to ban the practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying. Groups connected to political mega-donors, Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, have long advocated for this policy. The organizations pushing for this include Texans For Fiscal Responsibility, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Scorecard – all receiving funding from, influenced by, and beholden to, the Dunn-Wilks political machine.
These groups want to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying to eliminate their competition and this source of independent information. Lobbying and political groups under the influence of Wilks and Dunn are strongly opposed to many beneficial practices that use tax dollars as a funding source, including pro-life 12-month maternal care, mental health services in public schools, and expanding broadband into rural Texas. A glaring example is how these radical groups have become aggressive antagonists to Texas public schools and have run a years-long smear campaign against organizations such as the Texas Association of School Boards.
Denying local ISDs the opportunity to lobby the legislature is just one step in their massive plan to privatize Texas public education. Ironically, these are the same groups that want to use hundreds of thousands of tax dollars each year to fund publicly unaccountable private education via school vouchers.
The ordinary taxpayer certainly does not benefit from a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying. Ultimately, when local political subdivisions lobby the legislature, they are attempting to ease the burden on struggling local citizens. They are asking the state to use available funds to assist their communities to keep local tax rates low while still meeting the needs of infrastructure, the criminal justice system, local schools, and many other vital societal needs. This is especially important for rural Texans whose individual voices would be overwhelmed by special interests without lobbying representation by public associations.
In small and rural communities there is great trust between citizens and the local leaders they elect each year. With that trust placed in them, they are doing the best job they can to fulfill their responsibilities with limited budgets and staff. However, many times the cost-benefit of hiring a consultant is better than letting needs go without advocacy..
Undoubtedly, there are groups that lobby for positions contrary to our own. Nevertheless, which would be worse: to have hundreds of lobbying groups representing various interests or concentrating legislative influence to only a few radical billionaires?
Closed door, billionaire controlled, special interest lobbyists are the only ones who would benefit from a ban on taxpayer funded lobbyists. The voice of average citizens would be removed from the equation, as the only lobbyists meeting with legislators would be those whose goals are radical ideology and lining the pockets of their masters.
While large metropolitan communities would simply hire their own in-house staff to enhance their representation in Austin, small rural communities, who cannot afford to increase staff levels, would be severely limited in their ability to be a part of the political process.
Organizations which work to combine communities’ resources to perform vital research and advocacy work would become irrelevant. With no way to combine resources or hire third-party advocates and given there are more State representatives from the Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas than in the rest of the state combined, the resultant political silencing of rural Texas becomes clear.
Rural Texas communities should retain every tool available, including paid political advocacy, to make sure their voices are not silenced in Austin.
Glenn Rogers is the representative for Texas House District 60, which includes Parker County.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here