Transcript Highlights:

• Second, it provides transparency to legislators and the public regarding lobbying by entities who are
• Raising awareness of the dangers of lobbying by entities influenced by and subject to the control of
• The bill applies to lobbying and political activity connected with a hostile foreign country defined
• Second, it provides transparency to legislators and the public regarding lobbying by entities who are
• Raising awareness of the dangers of lobbying by entities influenced by and subject to the control of

Bills: HB358, HB358

Keywords: juvenile justice, detention, age of majority, jurisdiction, child welfare, foreign influence, political activity, transparency, registration, civil penalties, hostile foreign principals, state ethics, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> asked the board to do on uh uh lobbying asked the board to do on uh uh lobbying of<00:08:48.040>
• </c> $3,000 in compensation uh for lobbying $3,000 in compensation uh for lobbying for<00:22:01.799><
• Again, just real briefly, there are four types of lobbying.
• Again, just real briefly, there are four types of lobbying.
• There are four types of lobbying.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're going to actually have lobbying.
• And being the lobbying activities?"
• ><c> lobbying</c><00:28:33.679><c> services</c><00:28:34.799><c> then</c> they're providing lobbying
• </c> aggregate costs for um the lobbying aggregate costs for um the lobbying services<00:32:31.440><c
• </c> allow the public funding of lobbying allow the public funding of lobbying activities<00:43:55.040

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session to consider HB 314, which would prohibit the use of federal, state, or local funds for lobbying activities. Representative Turkot offered a replace-all amendment intended to be a compromise measure focused on transparency and local control. He explained that the amendment narrows the bill to registered lobbyists, clarifies that public officials and employees who are not required to register as lobbyists are not restricted from testifying, and adds a process allowing municipalities to opt in to lobbying-related spending if approved locally and disclosed in annual reports. He also said the amendment was designed to address confusion he believes has been caused by misinformation about the bill’s effect on municipalities and associations. Committee members raised repeated concerns about how the amendment would apply to school districts, cooperative districts, counties, and other associations beyond the New Hampshire Municipal Association. Turkot and others said the language in RSA 15 and the added references to RSA 318-A were intended to cover lobbying entities generally, while the NHMA section was included because it is separately addressed in statute. Several members questioned whether the amendment’s intent was clear enough without explicit references to schools and counties, and whether the committee should have held a public hearing on the substantially revised language. Supporters argued the amendment was clear, that school districts and municipalities are distinct legal entities, and that cooperative districts could handle the issue through their existing annual-report and voting processes. The discussion also covered how local approval would work, including whether the proposal would require an opt-in vote and how county budgets would reflect lobbying-related dues or expenses. Members noted that in cooperative districts and county settings, approval would likely be handled through existing budget or annual report procedures, with majority vote rules applying where relevant. No final vote on the amendment or bill is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee spent most of the session debating the scope, clarity, and transparency requirements of the proposed changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it unconstitutional to use taxpayer funds for lobbying?
• Is it unconstitutional to use taxpayer funds for lobbying?
• Um dollars on on advocates or lobbying.
• </c> the issue behind taxpayer fun lobbying the issue behind taxpayer fun lobbying in<00:33:04.720><c
• You know, that's lobbying and trips.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's certainly the word lobbying doesn't appear in there.
• They're also, as I say, prohibited in the grant agreement from lobbying.
• Now I have further questions in regards to lobbying services.
• Are you included in that group of people that could not lobby?
• But did you not think that you were lobbying or active?

Summary: The follow-up informational hearing focused on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library and the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP), including how the original $68.2 million state investment was spent, why funds were not redirected sooner to the Dollywood Foundation, and whether spending complied with AB 157 and later SB 105. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns that SRP and the State Library had been slow to provide documents, that quarterly reporting and other contract requirements were not met on time, and that the State Library did not escalate issues earlier. State Librarian Greg Lucas said the library sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s view that SRP could continue spending its $4.8 million so long as it furthered the program, and later redirected about $55 million to the Dollywood Foundation after paperwork was submitted. He also acknowledged the library should have shared SRP’s final report with the committee sooner and said the materials eventually received appeared satisfactory, though the chair and Senator Grove remained concerned that there was still no clear accounting of books delivered by SRP. A major portion of the hearing examined SRP’s expenditures and vendor contracts, including Shipyard for marketing and web services, SAGE Strategies for management consulting, Lotus Financial Solutions and other financial vendors, and United Way California Capital Region for a small marketing grant. Committee members questioned whether some spending, especially Changecraft’s work during the AB 157 period, amounted to lobbying or attempts to influence legislation, which the grant agreement prohibited. SRP representatives said the work was communications and stakeholder outreach, not lobbying, and that invoices reflected the board’s oversight and the nonprofit’s startup and closeout phases. They also said some work continued during the rescission and closeout period to unwind contracts and return funds, and that any reporting delays were due to transition, lack of a reporting mechanism from the State Library, and the need to collect records after vendors were canceled. Members of SRP said the nonprofit was created to build the infrastructure for a self-sustaining statewide program, expand local partnerships, and support multilingual outreach in underserved counties. They described a working board that met regularly, selected vendors collectively, and used multiple financial and administrative contractors to maintain checks and balances. However, committee members pressed them on the lack of detailed invoices, the absence of clear metrics showing how many books SRP actually delivered, and the limited apparent return on spending such as the $581,708 Shipyard contract, the $125,000 website work, and the $5,000 United Way grant. No formal vote or legislative action was taken during the hearing; it was an oversight session aimed at obtaining explanations and additional documentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• An act to amend the Legislative Law in relation to lobbying for the confirmation of persons to state
• I noticed that the Legislative Law, when it's addressing lobbying, addresses usually either specific
• So this bill would require, as opposed to currently, which is permissive, require all these lobbying
• The vast majority of people who file lobbying reports are capable of doing electronic filing.
• The vast majority of people who file lobbying reports are capable of doing electronic filing.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Ethics and Internal Governance met for its first meeting of the year on March 4 at noon, with Chair Shelley Mayer and Ranking Member Steve Rhoads emphasizing a collegial approach and a shared interest in transparency, efficiency, and effective government. The committee then considered several ethics and lobbying-related bills. On S-374, relating to lobbying for the confirmation of persons to state office, Senator Rhoads raised concern that the bill could chill individual citizens from sending emails or letters about nominees if such activity triggered lobbyist registration. The chair said the bill was intended to target organizations and entities spending significant time and money to influence nominations, and noted the sponsor might refine the language. The bill was moved forward, with Mayer voting aye and Rhoads voting nay. The committee also advanced S-224A, which would raise the threshold for small not-for-profits subject to lobbying reporting requirements from $5,000 to $10,000, and S4039A, which would prohibit certain persons from receiving compensation for legal, consulting, or similar work for industrial development agencies, economic assistance corporations, or state and local authorities, while also addressing consultant disclosure. Rhoads supported S-224A and opposed S4039A. Finally, the committee approved S5843, which would require all lobbying filings to be submitted electronically; Rhoads opposed it, saying filing rules should allow as many compliance options as possible, while Mayer said most filers can already do so electronically. All bills were moved to the floor, and the meeting adjourned shortly thereafter.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker and gentlelady, yes, if they are lobbying. So, Mr.
• Because if you're lobbying, if you're lobbying, you're lobbying. It's pretty straightforward.
• Speaker, gentlemen, what degree is the minimal degree of lobbying? Mr.
• When we're talking about engaging in lobbying to any degree, a conversation could be lobbying, an email
• How do the lobbyists that we have know what degree of lobbying it is?

Bills: HB145, HB164, HR1, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB306, SB29, SB37, HB99, HB206, HB213, HB270, SB104, SB193, HB38, HB254, HB256, SB58, SB64, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB253

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County

Summary: The House opened with quorum, invocation, pledge, and several announcements recognizing guests and Early Childhood Day at the Roundhouse, including remarks supporting New Mexico’s universal child care efforts. The chamber then received and adopted a long series of committee reports, moving multiple bills forward, including HB 303, SB 96, HB 195, HB 279, HB 292 (with a Judiciary substitute), SB 30, HB 234, SB 35, SB 40, SB 43, HB 153 (with an Appropriations substitute), HB 253, HB 255, HB 287, HB 371 (with an Appropriations substitute), SB 143, HB 248 (with a Taxation and Revenue substitute), HB 309, SB 48, and enrollment/signing reports for memorials. The House also received Senate Judiciary Committee substitute for SB 41, which would eliminate the statute of limitations for certain sexual crimes and was referred to Judiciary. The main floor debate centered on House Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 99, a medical malpractice reform bill. Supporters said it would balance patient compensation with provider stability by capping punitive damages, raising the burden of proof for punitive damages, and limiting when such claims can be pleaded. Several members described the bill as the product of months of bipartisan work and argued it would help retain doctors, especially in rural areas. The House passed HB 99 on final passage by a vote of 16-3. The House also passed HB 66, expanding the health care provider loan repayment program, by 69-0; HB 306, addressing unexpected patient-facing facility fees, by 69-0; HB 38, adding wheelchairs to insurance coverage for certain prostheses-related benefits, by 69-0; HB 20, allowing Native American applicants to request a distinguishing designation on driver’s licenses and ID cards, by 66-3; and HB 253, preserving and regulating virtual education with an emergency clause, by 69-0. The chamber then took up HB 213, which expands optometrists’ scope of practice to include certain laser eye procedures. A proposed amendment requiring patients to sign a disclosure acknowledging that optometrists are not MDs or DOs and did not attend medical school was debated at length, with supporters framing it as informed consent and opponents calling it demeaning and unnecessary. The House tabled that amendment 35-19, and the underlying bill continued in debate at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• There’s certainly the word lobbying doesn’t appear in there.
• They’re also, as I say, prohibited in the grant agreement from lobbying.
• Now I have further questions in regards to lobbying services.
• But did you not think that you were lobbying or active?
• And while you all have communicated that that's not... ...engaged in lobbying.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker and gentlelady, yes, if they are lobbying. So, Mr.
• , if you're lobbying, you're lobbying.
• And then gentlemen, to any degree they engage in lobbying. Mr.
• When we're talking about engaging in lobbying to any degree, a conversation could be lobbying, an email
• or board members come in to lobby to us.

Bills: HB145, HB164, HR1, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB306, SB29, SB37, HB99, HB206, HB213, HB270, SB104, SB193, HB38, HB254, HB256, SB58, SB64, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB253

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> entity and then I come back and Lobby entity and then I come back and Lobby represent<01:10:43.640
• </c> immediately go into these types of Lobby immediately go into these types of Lobby jobs<01:14:42.040
• </c> simply walk into a well-paid lobbying simply walk into a well-paid lobbying job<01:14:53.880><c>
• So if they spend over $3,000 on lobbying, such as preparing handouts or in some other way trying to lobby
• </c><01:48:12.960><c> after</c> restriction on lobbying after restriction on lobbying after legislative

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's certainly the word lobbying doesn't appear in there.
• Now I have further questions in regard to lobbying services.
• Are you included in that group of people that could not lobby?
• The grant itself, which you were a part of, does it prohibit you from lobbying?
• But did you not think that you were lobbying or active?

Summary: The committee held a follow-up informational hearing on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library program, focusing on how state funds were used by the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP) and whether the program complied with statutory requirements. Chair and Senator Grove repeatedly questioned State Librarian Greg Lucas about delayed document production, the State Library’s decision to allow SRP to continue spending $4.8 million after the 2024 budget changes, and the lack of clear accounting for how many books were actually delivered to children. Lucas said the State Library had sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s advice, and ultimately received bank statements, invoices, and narrative reports that he said were satisfactory, though he acknowledged the committee should have been given the documents sooner. A major issue was whether SRP and its vendors used state funds for lobbying or influence efforts related to AB 157/SB 157, despite contract language prohibiting lobbying. The committee highlighted invoices and emails involving ChangeCraft and SAGE Strategies that appeared to coincide with legislative activity, while SRP representatives said their work was communications, stakeholder outreach, and board-directed advocacy, not lobbying. Members of SRP also defended their vendor selections and invoicing practices, explaining that the organization was in startup and transition mode, had multiple financial vendors for checks and balances, and was working to build infrastructure, local partnerships, and multilingual outreach capacity rather than directly buying books. The hearing also scrutinized specific expenditures, including roughly $581,000 to Shipyard for marketing and web/digital work, $110,000 to Lotus Financial Solutions, and a $5,000 grant to United Way of the California Capital Region. Senators argued the invoices were vague and the deliverables were not evident, pointing to a simple website, limited social media presence, and no clear evidence that some advertised campaigns ever went live. SRP witnesses said the work was part of a phased plan to establish a statewide foundation and that some assets and documentation had not yet been provided to the committee. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with the chair emphasizing the need for tighter oversight, clearer documentation, and better accountability for taxpayer funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• When a utility is lobbying, they’re not lobbying on behalf of their customers.
• And that's why S. 2239 expands the definition of lobbying to cover executive lobbying and align with
• And that's why S2239 expands the definition of lobbying to cover executive lobbying and align with Massachusetts
• statutory definition of lobbying.
• with the damaging gas industry lobby groups.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several energy-related bills, with the main focus on H. 3534/S. 2255, which would ban or sharply restrict residential third-party electric suppliers, and on related reform proposals. Supporters included the Attorney General’s office, municipal and regional planning officials, environmental justice groups, consumer advocates, and city officials from Boston and Chelsea. They argued that the residential competitive supply market has produced higher bills, deceptive sales tactics, auto-renewals into higher rates, and disproportionate harm to low-income residents, seniors, communities of color, and people with limited English. Witnesses cited AG reports estimating hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges over time, described door-to-door and storefront marketing abuses, and said municipal aggregation programs have saved residents money while offering more stable rates. Several supporters said the Legislature should either ban residential competitive supply or adopt strong guardrails such as ending automatic renewals, banning incentive-based commissions, and capping rates relative to basic service. Opponents or industry representatives from the Retail Energy Advancement League, Vistra, and Constellation argued that the market can provide savings, longer-term price stability, and value-added products such as renewable options and time-of-use offerings. They said Massachusetts has already improved consumer protections through DPU proceedings, that complaints are relatively few compared with the size of the market, and that a ban would eliminate consumer choice. They also defended direct sales and commissions as normal features of a retail market, while saying they would support additional protections, licensing, bonding, and stronger oversight of bad actors. Committee members pressed both sides on whether the market truly saves money, whether automatic renewals should be banned, and whether the AG’s proposed reforms would be enough. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3972, a bill to extend utility shutoff protections during extreme heat, with Rep. Mindy Domb arguing that Massachusetts should treat extreme heat like extreme cold and protect customers facing financial hardship. Rep. Barrett also testified for H. 3450, a municipal broadband/right-of-way bill, arguing that communities need easier and cheaper access to utility poles and public rights of way to build municipal broadband. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Creem testified for S. 2239, which would bar utilities from recovering ratepayer funds for lobbying, promotions, trade association dues, and similar expenses. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> taxpayer funds to lobby the legislature. taxpayer funds to lobby the legislature.
• </c><00:45:45.200><c> against</c> their money being used to lobby against their money being used to lobby
• </c><00:45:49.839><c> against</c> people's tax money to lobby against people's tax money to lobby against
• Um and lobbying if they don't want them.
• </c> taxpayer money to come here and lobby taxpayer money to come here and lobby against<00:57:36.799

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first returned to House Bill 157, which had been left pending from an earlier session. After correcting the procedural posture, the committee voted on a motion of ought to pass and it failed on a roll call. A reconsideration motion then passed unanimously, restoring the bill to the floor. Representative Turcot then moved ITL, explaining the committee believed there was a better path, likely through an ad hoc study and a future bill; that motion passed 9-2, and the chair said a minority report would be required and not to place the bill on consent. The committee next took up House Bill 331, which would require the Secretary of State to publish the current location of bills on the website until gubernatorial action. Supporters said the bill would reduce confusion and legislative limbo after bills leave the House and Senate. Online testimony was reported as 116 in support and 4 opposed. The committee voted 11-0 to pass the bill and placed it on consent. House Bill 347 followed, dealing with protections for legislators’ employment when serving in office. Supporters argued it would protect elected officials from employer retaliation and clarify existing law; opponents said it was an unnecessary mandate on employers and raised enforcement concerns, especially for out-of-state employers. The committee voted 8-3 to pass the bill, and a minority report was anticipated; it was not placed on consent. The committee then considered House Bill 605, which included student loan forgiveness provisions tied to legislative service. Members opposing the bill argued legislators are not state employees and should not receive that benefit, while others noted the bill’s employment-related provisions and the difficulty of meeting the hours requirement. The committee voted 11-0 to ITL House Bill 605 and placed it on consent.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have in New York State a comprehensive lobbying regulation.
• Committees, issue advocacy campaigns, lobby, that sort of thing.
• Lobbying loophole for nonprofits, allowing up to $10,000 for a nonprofit.
• I'm concerned, I'm concerned that we will have lobbying efforts from multiple 501(c)(3)s, each one lobbying
• I'M CONCERNED, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE WILL HAVE LOBBYING EFFORTS FROM MULTIPLE 501C-3s, EACH ONE LOBBYING

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with routine formalities, approved the journal, welcomed a SkillsUSA student delegation, and then moved into budget and policy business. The chamber accepted a Rules Committee report and took up a supplemental budget extender, Senate Print 9963, which would extend state operations through April 22 and authorize $12.7 billion, including about $5.1 billion in new funding for Medicaid, payroll, and school aid. Senator O’Mara questioned the delay in the budget, the lack of public detail, and unresolved issues such as CLCPA changes, auto insurance, and SEQR reforms; the sponsor said negotiations were ongoing and that school aid would likely build on the executive budget. The extender passed 57-1, with Senator Weik voting no. The Senate then adopted Senate Resolution 1887, sponsored by Senator Brisport, memorializing the Governor to proclaim April 2026 as Arab American Heritage Month. Senators Brisport, Fahy, Salazar, and Gounardes spoke in support, emphasizing Arab Americans’ cultural, civic, and economic contributions in New York and condemning anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias. The resolution was adopted by voice vote and opened for co-sponsorship. The chamber next considered several bills on the calendar, including a bill by Senator Cleare to prohibit state-chartered financial institutions from investing in private correctional facilities. Supporters framed it as a moral response to private prisons and rising federal use of detention facilities, while opponents argued it would overregulate state-chartered banks and affect private investment decisions. The bill passed 36-22. The Senate also passed a bill by Senator Krueger raising the nonprofit lobbying disclosure threshold from $5,000 to $10,000, after debate over transparency and whether the change would reduce oversight; it passed 35-23. Finally, the Senate passed Senator May’s bill on advanced transmission technologies and utility planning, after extensive debate over ratepayer costs, battery storage, and data center growth; supporters said it could lower energy costs through more efficient grid use, while opponents said it would raise rates and duplicate existing studies. The bill passed after being restored to the non-controversial calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• A notice is not lobbying. ALEC is a lobbying organization, okay? Well, are they lobbying a bill?
• A notice is not lobbying. ALEC is a lobbying organization, okay? Well, are they lobbying a bill?
• A notice is not lobbying. ALEC is a lobbying organization, okay? Well, are they lobbying a bill?
• </c> they lobbying a bill were they lobbying they lobbying a bill were they lobbying a<04:15:27.680><
• </c> lobbying activity because while lobbying lobbying activity because while lobbying at<04:25:02.880

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first dealt with scheduling and housekeeping, including a plan to take a hard break at 2:00 p.m. for an early bill, hold a brief executive session, and then continue with the remaining afternoon bills. The chair also noted the next likely meeting date would be March 12, when the committee expected to take up the remaining bills before crossover deadlines. The main substantive item was House Bill 142, which would recognize the Honor and Remember flag for Gold Star families and related remembrance purposes. Prime sponsor Rep. Michael Moffett described the bill as a bipartisan measure revised to address earlier concerns, arguing that the flag honors fallen service members, can be personalized with names, and complements rather than detracts from the American flag. He said many other states have already adopted it and suggested the committee could amend details such as the number of days and locations for display. He also raised practical issues about flag dimensions and whether the bill should use "shall" or "may" for display requirements. Testimony was divided. Janine Nutter opposed the bill, saying she supports Gold Star families but objected because the flag resembles the Viet Cong flag and because she believes the American flag should remain the sole symbol representing servicemembers. Kevin Grady, representing the State Veterans Advisory Committee under RSA 115:8, also opposed the bill, saying the committee believes the American flag is the only symbol needed, while still praising the work of Honor and Remember in creating personalized flags for families. Committee members asked questions about where the flag would be flown, whether the State Veterans Cemetery in Boscawen is already displaying it, and how the bill’s language would interact with cemetery policies and committee discretion. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:18:18.440><c> program</c> vote the lobbying program vote the lobbying program um<00:18:21.000
• Any of those actions are going to be considered lobbying.
• <c> be</c><00:20:55.280><c> extended</c> 1st um lobbying is going to be extended 1st um lobbying is going
• The lobbying program also has the gift prohibition.
• </c><00:32:01.880><c> and</c> compensated $10,000 for lobbying and compensated $10,000 for lobbying and

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, there's a question about lobby.
• The lobbying expenditure issue kind of hit us.
• , as a lobby expense.
• And as far as that goes... ...the lobby expense.
• At issue are two lobby activity reports.

Summary: The Texas Ethics Commission met on March 11, 2025, first in executive session and then in open session. The chair announced that, in light of Texas Attorney General Opinion KP-484, the commission would conform its practices to the opinion and move to repeal tolling rules for sworn-complaint deadlines. The chair also said the commission would dismiss 36 pending sworn-complaint cases in which the 120-day settlement deadline had been exceeded, even though the delay had been tolled under prior TEC rules. The commission then set future meeting dates for June 12 and September 17 and approved prior meeting minutes. The commission adopted a new criminal-referral rule clarifying that, once jurisdiction over a complaint is accepted, commissioners may vote to make a criminal referral. It also adopted revised advisory-opinion rules, with a clarifying amendment from a commenter, and republished proposed changes to the definition of “principal purpose” for political committees after staff recommended a 49 percent political-activity threshold and further public input. The commission published for comment proposed changes to ethics training rules, facial-compliance review procedures, late-filing waiver and reduction rules, and sworn-complaint procedures, including tighter discovery limits, a default-order set-aside process, and removal of tolling language inconsistent with KP-484. It also republished Chapter 28 rules on Speaker-candidate reporting. The commission adopted several advisory opinions. It declined to give an affirmative defense on whether certain school-district communications were political advertising because related litigation had already addressed the issue. It reaffirmed that a House member may use donated district-office space if it is not reimbursable with public funds and was accepted before the contribution moratorium. It also concluded that a judge may use political funds for travel to a Navy-hosted event as a local dignitary, that legislators’ use of a corporate aircraft for a border-region fact-finding trip could be permissible but would likely trigger reporting obligations, that a TCEQ commissioner’s revolving-door restrictions apply only to matters actually placed before the commissioner, and that a part-time legislative staffer may not take outside employment assisting a registered lobbyist. The commission then heard and acted on numerous fine-waiver appeals, granting several full waivers or reductions and approving staff recommendations on others, and terminated a number of inactive campaign treasurer appointments. Finally, the executive director briefed the commission on the 2025 legislative session, noting that staffing requests are tied to Sunset recommendations and that the House had preliminarily recommended about half of the commission’s appropriations requests.

Transcript Highlights:

• It depends on conduct that constitutes lobbying or government relations activity.
• ><c> government</c> constitutes lobbying or government constitutes lobbying or government relations<00
• And that rule simply says you may not receive compensation for lobbying.
• Uh, receive compensation for lobbying.
• </c> &gt;&gt; the hotel lobby. Representative Myers? &gt;&gt; the hotel lobby.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• If you don't like what a private company is lobbying on, don't shop there.
• For example, if you don't like what Target lobbies for, don't shop at Target.
• It says taxpayer-funded lobbying hurts small cities like Lago Vista.
• They hired one of the big lobby firms everybody in here would recognize.
• And the state does not have registered lobbies.

Bills: SCR5, SCR13, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB24, SB35, SB57, SB65, SB112, SB284, SB290, SB388, SB400, SB402, SB412, SB495, SB499, SB502, SB509, SB621, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB854, SB875, SB893, SB917, SB974, SB1025, SB1061, SB1073, SB1106, SB1268, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1451, SB1555, SB1902, SJR36, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SB495, SB412, SB10, SB18, SB565, SB372, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB13, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SJR57, SCR8, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB3, SB6, SB15, SB35, SB290, SB706, SB842, SB917, SB1281, SB1451, SB1902, SB12, SB13, SB17, SB19, SB388, SR261, SR265, SR276, SR277, SR281, SR286, SR293, SCR5, SCR13, SB2425, SB2880, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB388, SB412, SB495, SB2425, SB2880

Keywords: SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming, education K-16, State Affairs, Texas Legislature, public school tribute, water rights

Transcript Highlights:

• This establishes certain presumptions regarding lobbying on behalf of private clients.
• HB 412 establishes certain presumptions regarding lobbying on behalf of private clients.
• It expands the definition of lobbying and the state lobbying law to include certain communications with
• Expands the definition of lobbying and the state lobbying law includes certain communications with government
• Expands the definition of lobbying and the state lobbying law includes certain communications with government

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met to take up several House bills and adopted recommendations on a number of them. HB 111, which would authorize civil claims against persons or businesses profiting from sexual exploitation or sex trafficking and extend the civil statute of limitations to 10 years, was recommended to pass unamended after discussion with the Attorney General’s office. HB 54, increasing penalties for repeated excessive speeding offenses, was recommended to pass with the Attorney General’s first suggested amendment requiring identification processing, including fingerprinting and photographing, for convicted violators unless already done. HB 70, dealing with condominium budget summaries and reserve requirements, was recommended to pass as amended, and HB 320, allowing supported decision-making agreements for qualified adults including those with disabilities, mental illness, or age 65 and older, was also recommended to pass as amended. These recommendations were adopted without objection, though some members noted reservations on HB 54 and HB 70. HB 239, which would clarify that inability to provide certain needs to a child due solely to lack of financial resources does not constitute abuse or neglect, was deferred to Thursday, April 3, at 10:00 a.m. HB 359, concerning covered offender registration and a proposed exemption related to sexual assault in the fourth degree, was recommended to pass with amendments deleting section 2 after concerns that the current statute already covers the issue and that the added language would create a title problem by addressing two topics. The committee adopted that recommendation. HB 412, establishing presumptions and expanding lobbying-related definitions for certain communications with government officials, was recommended to pass with an added clarification excluding purely informational, ceremonial, or routine relationship-building communications from the presumption; that recommendation was also adopted. HB 472, which would allow digitized identification cards to be accepted as valid identification and authorize law enforcement agencies to accept them under certain circumstances, was not decided. After a recess, the chair announced that everything after HB 412 would be deferred to Thursday, the 27th, at 10:30 p.m. in room 016, and the remaining items were postponed.