Texas House Bill HB18

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/21/25
• Out of House Committee: 8/28/25
• Voted on by House: 9/2/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 9/3/25
• Voted on by Senate: 9/4/25
• Governor Action: 9/17/25
• Bill Becomes a Law: 9/17/25

Summary

HB 18 creates a new subchapter in the Texas Government Code aimed at regulating fundraising and certain campaign-related spending by legislators during an “impeding absence.” The bill defines that term to cover an unexcused absence from a legislative session in which a member is outside Texas to obstruct the chamber’s work, after the chamber has compelled attendance, ordered arrests, and issued civil warrants, and the member has not been granted leave or returned. During such an absence, a legislator, or a specific-purpose committee or legislative caucus supporting that legislator, may not knowingly accept political contributions above a daily limit tied to the Texas Ethics Commission per diem, and may not make political expenditures for travel, food, or lodging connected to the absence. Contributions received in violation must be returned within five days, with special rules for mailed contributions already sent before the absence began. The bill also authorizes a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, with each improper contribution or expenditure treated separately.

Impact

The bill would add a new enforcement framework to Chapter 301 of the Government Code and apply it only to political contributions accepted or political expenditures made on or after the effective date. It creates new duties for legislative leaders and district courts, including certification of alleged violations, expedited show-cause proceedings, and appellate review in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. It also affects legislators, legislative caucuses, and specific-purpose committees by restricting fundraising and spending during a defined absence period and by exposing violators to civil penalties.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill was controversial but ultimately passed both chambers. The House approved it on third reading by 86-46, and the Senate passed it 18-8, indicating meaningful bipartisan or cross-faction opposition even as the measure advanced. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded votes show the bill drew substantial support from majorities in both chambers while also facing a sizable bloc of dissent.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be whether the state should restrict political fundraising and campaign spending by legislators during quorum-breaking or otherwise obstructive absences, and whether those restrictions are an appropriate exercise of legislative rulemaking power. Opponents likely objected to the civil penalty structure, the expedited court process, and the bill’s focus on members who leave the state during a session, while supporters likely viewed it as a deterrent against using outside fundraising to sustain legislative walkouts. The vote pattern on amendments also suggests there was significant debate over the bill’s details before final passage.