Transcript Highlights:

• This is about the pharmaceutical lobby. This is about the alcohol lobby.
• This is about the restaurant lobby. This is about the marijuana lobby.
• , $250K and alcohol lobbies to Abbott.
• Because I was one of the people that he tried to lobby for the $25,000.
• It doesn't apply because that's not lobbying. Okay, great.

Bills: SB 5, SB 11, SB 12

Keywords: disaster relief, flood preparedness, emergency funding, local government support, meteorological forecasting, human trafficking, trafficking victim, compelling prostitution, affirmative defense, criminal defense, coercion, force fraud or coercion, sexual exploitation, victim protection, Penal Code, Texas criminal law, prosecution, party liability, affirmative defense statute, survivor rights

Summary: The Senate Committee on State Affairs took up Senate Bill 5, which Senator Perry described as a ban on intoxicating THC consumer products while preserving legal CBD, CBG, hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder, and hemp seed oil products. Perry argued that most retail THC products are already illegal under federal law, that the industry has used loopholes and misleading labeling to sell high-potency products, and that regulation would be ineffective because chemists can quickly alter formulations. He also said the bill would steer people with medical needs toward the Texas Compassionate Use Program (T-Cup), which he and other supporters described as the proper physician-guided alternative. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly discussed the distinction between legal hemp-derived products and intoxicating THC products, and Perry said the bill would not touch non-consumable hemp uses such as fiber and clothing. Invited testimony came from law enforcement and medical witnesses who supported the bill. Texas Police Chiefs Association representative Steve Dye, Kaufman County District Attorney Early Wiley, and Chambers County Sheriff Brian Hawthorne all said regulation would be too costly, too complex, and ultimately unenforceable, while a ban would be clearer and easier to enforce. They cited overloaded DPS labs, the need for expensive private testing, limited police and prosecutor resources, and the difficulty of keeping up with constantly changing cannabinoids and out-of-state products. Hawthorne and Wiley described raids and investigations involving warehouses, retail stores, cash seizures, and products they said were marketed to young people and often mislabeled or imported from other states. They also said the bill would help law enforcement by creating a clearer legal line and protecting legitimate CBD/CBG businesses. Dr. Lindy McGee, speaking for the Texas Medical Association and Texas Pediatric Society, testified that retail THC products pose serious risks to children and adolescents, including addiction, impaired brain development, psychosis, suicide attempts, self-harm, accidental toddler ingestions, and possible long-term cognitive effects. She said there is no effective medication treatment for THC addiction comparable to nicotine cessation tools, and she supported restrictions such as child-resistant packaging, no marketing to minors, and age limits, while opposing criminal penalties for possession by minors. Senators asked follow-up questions about brain development, memory, dementia risk, pregnancy, and cardiovascular effects. No vote was taken during the portion provided, and the committee continued with invited testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I would just say you can't lobby as a statewide elected official.
• Well, they're not being compensated for lobbying.
• I'm saying that you can't be compensated for lobbying.
• Is that someone that's lobbying and getting compensated? I mean, there...
• Lobbying us? Not us, but lobbying. I don't know. They haven't released their client list.

Bills: SR125, SCR70, SCR12, HB4, HB251, HB623, HB819, HB944, HB986, HB1098, HB1222, HB1257, HB221, HCR58, SCR22, SCR24, SB29, SB30, SB32, SB41, SB42, SB43, SB47, SB84, SB93, SB113, SB192, SB199, SB219, SB220, SB221, SB222, SB241, SB253, SB255, SB289, SB292, SB306, SB314, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB14, SB102, SB133, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB200, SB217, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB330, SB449, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB274, SB304, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB436, SB424, SCR61, SCR9, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, HCR31, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1239, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB210, HB220, HB228, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB750, HB813, HB815, HB826, HB870, HB949, HB953, HB1045, HB1092, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1177, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB22, HB28, HB33, HB41, HB47, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB195, HB214, HB217, HB233, HB283, HB290, HB319, HB324, HB345, HB362, HB363, HB368, HB377, HB380, HB382, HB386, HB392, HB406, HB431, HB441, HB466, HB503, HB533, HB559, HB575, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB636, HB655, HB664, HB685, HB692, HB707, HB715, HB732, HB738, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB807, HB822, HB856, HB860, HB868, HB887, HB888, HB905, HB908, HB961, HB980, HB990, HB992, HB999, HB1000, HB1010, HB1146, HB1157, HB1233, HB1236, HB1243, HB54, HB137, HB180, HB192, HB310, HB321, HB396, HB512, HB552, HB578, HB638, HB663, HB708, HB717, HB718, HB1009, HB1082, HB1104, HB1107, HB1198, HB1246, HB1250, HB17, HB36, HB73, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB211, HB226, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB354, HB399, HB677, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB728, HB759, HB789, HB844, HB850, HB966, HB1036, SB149, SB382, SB441, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782

Keywords: SR125, Senate Resolution 125, MUSV, Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel, MASC, Modular Attack Surface Craft, Conrad Shipyard, Morgan City, Louisiana shipbuilding, U.S. Navy, Department of the Navy, unmanned naval vessels, autonomous ships, defense procurement, military contracting, shipyard jobs, maritime workforce, advanced manufacturing, robotics, software engineering

Transcript Highlights:

• So even if you exceed the compensation threshold in lobby.
• That is not a popular opinion in the lobby, and I apologize to the lobby. for that many times already
• So, theoretically, during a legislative session, somebody could... and spend two grand to lobby people
• It may not be super popular with the lobby, but I think we should drop that down. I agree.
• I think there's a shadow lobby out there.

Keywords: Texas Ethics Commission, HB18, SB12, political contributions, civil penalties, Attorney General, criminal election offenses, legislation

Summary: In the latest meeting of the Texas Ethics Commission, significant discussions centered around newly passed legislation, specifically HB18 and SB12. HB18 introduces a civil penalty for members who accept political contributions while absent from the state, addressing potential obstructions to legislative actions. Senators and commissioners engaged in an in-depth dialogue about the implications of this bill, with many expressing concerns regarding enforcement and compliance. In contrast, SB12 expands the jurisdiction of the Attorney General to prosecute criminal election offenses, further tightening the oversight of election activities. The meeting concluded with acknowledgement of the efforts put forth by previous commission chairs, highlighting their contributions to the commission's success.

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, it will prohibit using ratepayer money to lobby against efforts to create a public utility.
• Because when I look at it, it seems like AB 1167 would prohibit lobbying against municipalization.
• council or county board of supervisors processes can be a gray area when it comes to sort of how lobbying
• in the specific context of decision making about municipalization what reaches the threshold of lobbying
• Assembly Member Burr: Municipalization and lobbying just prohibits them from using ratepayer funds to

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility affordability, transparency, clean energy, and consumer access. SB 327 would bar investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds to oppose municipal utility formation and would clarify the Public Advocates Office’s authority to inspect utility books; supporters framed it as a ratepayer protection and accountability measure, while utilities and industry groups raised concerns about municipalization language and data-request procedures. After discussion about the scope of the bill and existing guardrails from prior legislation, the committee voted SB 327 out on a due pass as amended basis to Appropriations, with the roll left open and later updated to 12-2. SB 1350, a hydrogen bill, would allow renewable portfolio standard credit for power plants using green hydrogen in turbines. The author and supporters said it would help California meet clean energy goals, support the Lancaster hydrogen project, and create jobs, while opponents, especially environmental groups, warned about NOx emissions, the risk of paper transactions, and the need for stronger safeguards on feedstocks and delivery. Members discussed amendments already taken and the need for continued work on environmental protections; the committee passed the bill 14-0 to Natural Resources. SB 868 would create a framework for plug-in or balcony solar devices for renters and others without rooftop solar, with safety standards and a cap on system size. Supporters said it would lower bills and expand access to solar, while utilities and some others raised safety and backfeed concerns and asked for more review through existing interconnection processes. The author and witnesses said the devices are small, non-exporting, and covered by safety certifications; the committee approved the bill 17-0, later updated to 18-0, and sent it to Appropriations. SB 1233 would require additional disclosure about utility cash on hand, capital structure, and related information in existing reports to help inform rates and affordability. Utilities opposed the measure as duplicative of existing proceedings and potentially delay-inducing, while supporters said it would improve transparency for ratepayers. The committee passed SB 1233 10-3 to Appropriations. The committee also dispensed with the consent calendar, passing the remaining consent items, including SB 925, SB 667, SB 952, SB 742, SB 929, SB 943, and SB 1138, and noted that SB 905 had been pulled from the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• We lobby them to change policy because there was a situation often across Louis Suffolk County where
• That's why H. 3400 expands the definition of lobbying to cover executive branch lobbying and align with
• Massachusetts' statutory definition of lobbying.
• And it's not just the lobbying and image-enhancing advertisements.
• And that seems to include using ratepayer money for lobbying, advertising, and perks.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight heard testimony on several bills. Senator Mike Moore supported S. 2185, which would delay implementation of the heavy-duty omnibus/advanced clean truck requirements while requiring the Commonwealth to purchase or lease electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicles starting in 2025; he argued the delay is needed because infrastructure, grid capacity, vehicle availability, and costs are not yet ready. The committee also heard strong support for S. 2156/H. 3318, which would require free menstrual products in public buildings, with advocates and students describing period poverty and the need to treat menstrual products like other basic restroom supplies. Senator John Keenan testified for S. 2158, a bill to let municipal light plants protect proprietary and competitively sensitive information from public disclosure while keeping board meetings and minutes open, saying it would help level the playing field against larger competitors. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 2125/H. 3384, the language access and inclusion bill. Testimony from the AAPI Commission, Mass Speaks coalition members, Mass Appleseed, MLRI, ATASK, MAPC, the Boston Bar Association, Mass Advocates for Children, and others described barriers faced by limited-English-proficient residents in accessing MassHealth, DCF, courts, domestic violence services, schools, and other state services. Witnesses cited untranslated documents, inadequate interpretation, delays, and the burden placed on bilingual staff and children; several also pointed to recent federal moves toward English-only policy as making state action more urgent. Committee members asked questions about implementation, interpreter availability, and the role of technology and remote participation, and the chair noted the bill had been reported favorably in a prior session and intended to be again. The committee also heard testimony on time-zone legislation. Dr. Karin Johnson, representing sleep medicine interests, supported H. 3405 for permanent standard time and opposed S. 2157 for permanent daylight saving time, arguing that standard time better aligns with circadian rhythms and health, while permanent daylight saving time would worsen morning darkness and sleep disruption. Members questioned the strength of the scientific evidence and discussed school start times, geography, and whether Massachusetts should align with neighboring states. No votes were taken during the hearing, and testimony continued on additional bills as the session progressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• my freshman colleagues that are here in the room, I want to tell you how important it is for you to lobby
• I want to tell you how important it is for you to lobby for your bill.
• You can't just lobby this group that's here. You've got to lobby the entire body in the chamber.
• And by lobbying, what I mean is you've got to go and explain to them why your bill is important.
• But lobby your fellow colleagues on the floor about the bill to see where they stand.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand he supports the environment in general, but the rules are that you're not allowed to lobby
• He is not lobbying on the issues of the Boundary Waters. He has cut ties with that.
• But he still works for a state lobbying team. He works on federal issues.
• The way we've placed the line is on registering as a lobbyist and doing lobbying at the state level,
• and doing lobbying at the state<00:09:15.480><c> level,</c><00:09:15.920><c> and</c><00:09:16.000><c

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• funds to pay for political campaigns and political advertising, and from using ratepayer money to lobby
• Since 2019, Southern Cal Gas used at least $36 million of its customers' money for political lobbying
• , and last year... ...million dollars of its customers' money for political lobbying.
• SB 24 prohibits utilities from abusing ratepayer dollars to pay for lobbying, advertising, and to work
• Utilities like SoCal Gas have also been caught spending millions of ratepayer dollars to lobby against

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy met without a quorum at first and began as a subcommittee, then later established quorum and heard several measures. The main policy bills discussed were SB 24, which would restrict investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds for political advertising, lobbying, and efforts against municipal utilities, and SB 283, the Clean Energy Safety Act of 2025, which would strengthen safety standards for battery energy storage facilities after the Moss Landing fire. The consent calendar also included SB 80, SB 491, SB 593, SB 804, and SCR 25, which were taken up without debate. SB 24 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates, who argued that ratepayer money should not be used for political or promotional activity and that current rules lack meaningful consequences. Opponents from the utilities and business community said the bill was too broad, could interfere with shareholder-funded advocacy and legal work, and might unintentionally affect public service communications and expert consulting. Several committee members shared support for the bill’s goal but raised concerns about its breadth, especially around legal fees and communications; the author said he was willing to work on amendments, including on consultant fees, and accepted committee amendments. SB 283 received broad support from firefighters, local governments, utilities, labor, and business groups. Supporters said the bill would improve fire safety, require fire authority consultation and inspections, and prevent battery storage from being sited in unsafe indoor combustible facilities. The author described the Moss Landing fire and said the bill would add standards based on NFPA guidance while preserving local governments’ ability to adopt stricter rules. No opposition testimony was presented. The committee voted SB 283 out 16-0, and SB 24 was also approved after a roll was held open and later closed, ultimately passing 11-1. The consent calendar passed 16-0, and the meeting adjourned after the final roll calls were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• And second, it will prohibit using ratepayer money to lobby against efforts to create a public utility
• part, which I'm very supportive of, is making sure that repair dollars aren't going towards the lobbying
• Because when I look at it, it seems like AB 1167 would prohibit lobbying against municipalization.
• council or county board of supervisors processes can be a gray area when it comes to sort of how lobbying
• Supervisors processes can be a gray area when it comes to sort of how lobbying is typically defined.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition, these companies have money to lobby.
• at no charge, so lobbying efforts from unaccredited claim companies is just unacceptable.
• In addition, these companies have money to lobby.
• In addition, these companies have money to lobby.
• In addition, these companies have money to lobby.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the role of County Veterans Service Officers (CVSOs), CalVet’s support for them, and the growing problem of for-profit, unaccredited claims companies. Committee leaders and witnesses emphasized that CVSOs are often the first point of contact for veterans and their families, helping with disability claims, education benefits, survivor benefits, housing, health care, and other wraparound services. Testimony highlighted the return on investment from CVSO work, with witnesses citing hundreds of millions in new federal benefits secured for California veterans and arguing that current state funding is too low relative to the workload and need. County representatives from Nevada, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo described local models of service. Los Angeles County highlighted a “no wrong door” approach, peer navigators, suicide review work, justice-involved veteran services, and homelessness coordination, while San Luis Obispo described rural outreach, mental health partnerships, and high suicide rates in its county. Nevada County stressed that smaller counties can be disadvantaged by workload-based formulas and that additional funding would expand access, especially in rural areas. Several witnesses said veterans often need more than claims help and should be connected to mental health, employment, food, and family supports. Much of the discussion centered on predatory claims consultants, which witnesses said charge veterans for services that accredited CVSOs provide free. Members and witnesses described cases involving requests for VA and banking logins, misleading advertising, and contracts that can take a percentage of veterans’ benefits. Committee members expressed support for legislation to curb these practices and for increased funding for CVSOs, including the Legislature’s intent to fund 50% of county veterans’ services operations. A CalVet deputy secretary also testified that California’s accreditation and training system improves claim quality and appeal outcomes, and that CalVet works with CVSOs through training, district offices, and appeals representation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lobbying and fundraising restrictions.
• Was Representative Simmons ever compensated in any way by EEC for lobbying? No.
• Was EEC for lobbying? No.
• So we fundraised from EEC for lobbying? No.
• Were you ever paid to lobby for EEC? No. Were you ever paid to lobby for EEC? To lobby for EEC? No.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• expand the definition of lobbying in the lobbying law to include certain communications with high-level
• certain presumptions regarding lobbying certain presumptions regarding lobbying on<00:01:01.000><c> behalf
• </c> would expand the definition of lobbying would expand the definition of lobbying in<00:01:06.159>
• ><c> include</c><00:01:07.240><c> certain</c> in the lobbying law to include certain in the lobbying
• House Bill 412, relating to lobbying.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 412 HD1, which would expand the definition of lobbying to include certain communications with high-level officials about procurement decisions and create presumptions regarding lobbying on behalf of private clients. The State Ethics Commission and State Procurement Office supported the measure, saying it would improve transparency and align Hawaii with other states, while the Hawaii Primary Care Association opposed it over concerns that employers and others could be swept in too broadly. No public testimony or questions led to any action on the bill during the hearing. The committee then took up House Bill 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain research purposes and clarify the Office of Information Practices’ rulemaking authority. OIP and the Public First Law Center supported the bill, arguing it would create uniform standards and that concerns could be handled through rules. The University of Hawaiʻi system, DBEDT, DHS, DLNR, and others raised concerns about the breadth of the terms “research” and “researcher,” privacy, confidential information, and possible misuse; Hawaiian Electric also warned about access to sensitive infrastructure information. Members questioned whether the bill was premature and whether definitions should be narrowed in statute, and OIP said it would consider working with agencies and the University on clearer definitions. House Bill 792 HD1, relating to the Office of the Legislative Analyst, drew no testimony beyond a late written support from the Hawaii Children’s Action Network, and the committee moved on without discussion. The committee then heard House Bill 1424, which would restrict transfers between appropriated funds for positions and operating expenses. Budget and Finance explained that current practice allows transfers from payroll to other current expenses when there are savings, but legislative appropriations for specific purposes must still be spent for that purpose. Several agencies expressed opposition or concerns, saying the bill could reduce flexibility, especially in response to federal funding changes or vacant positions, though members emphasized transparency and accountability. Budget and Finance suggested a reporting approach instead, and the committee discussed quarterly reporting as a possible alternative. Finally, the committee began House Bill 1153 HD1, which concerns funding adjustments for state programs and capital improvement projects and establishes a protocol fund. Budget and Finance, DAGS, and the State Procurement Office supported the measure, while the General Contractors Association and several construction-related groups opposed section two, arguing it would undo recent procurement protest-bond safeguards adopted in Act 162. The hearing then moved on toward House Bill 1297, but the transcript cuts off before that bill was fully discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 223 clarifies that lobbying, government relations, and similar services intended to influence
• By eliminating this blanket exemption for municipal lobbying contracts, HB 223 promotes much greater
• By eliminating this blanket exemption for municipal lobbying contracts, HB 223 promotes much greater
• representative from the City of Dallas let it be known that, and I quote, 'we have not changed our lobby
• Further, it came out that... ...the City of Dallas has been using the same lobby groups for 20 years,

Bills: HB223

Keywords: municipal budget, county budget, local government finance, spending cap, expenditure limit, inflation plus population growth, taxpayer impact statement, budget transparency, property tax, fees, Legislative Budget Board, voter approval, disaster spending, fiscal restraint, Texas Local Government Code, city budget, county expenditures

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard several House bills, with most measures left pending after testimony and later taken up in a batch of votes. Early in the meeting, HB 5624 on liability protections for motocross/off-road vehicle tracks, HB 223 on requiring competitive procurement for municipal lobbying contracts, HB 3709 on post-election audit procedures, and HB 5081 on protecting personal information of judicial officers and court staff were all discussed and left pending after testimony. Witnesses on HB 223 supported greater transparency in municipal lobbying contracts. HB 3709 drew sharp opposition from an election integrity advocate who argued the bill would reduce precinct-level granularity and make it harder to detect ballot errors, while a Secretary of State resource witness said the bill would simplify and standardize the audit process by location. HB 5081 received strong support from court administration and a district judge who described prior threats and an attack tied to publicly available personal information. The committee also heard HB 3546 on allowing school districts to move elections to November, HB 493 on barring certain felony offenders from serving as poll watchers, HB 5115 on increasing penalties for election fraud and related conduct, HB 4081 on trade secret filing procedures, HB 3909 on limiting restrictions on wireless devices at polling places, HB 2702 on limiting gubernatorial closure authority for certain veterans organizations during pandemics, HB 119 on foreign adversary lobbying, and HB 5138 on the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute election crimes. Several of these bills were explained with committee substitutes and then left pending before final action. Testimony on HB 493 and HB 5115 came from an election integrity advocate who supported both bills, saying the poll watcher restriction was appropriately narrowed and that the election fraud bill would help address invalid votes and refusal to count valid votes. Later, the committee took up pending business and voted out a large number of bills, generally along party lines or with broad support. HB 186 on minors’ social media use, HB 229, HB 2885, HB 3909 as substituted, HB 4285, HB 1661, HB 2820, HB 3181, HB 4157, HB 223, HB 521, HB 640, HB 1234, HB 2253, HB 2294, HB 3053, HB 3697 as substituted, HB 4281, HB 4463, HB 4995, HB 5081 as substituted, HB 5624 as substituted, HB 119 as substituted, HB 3225, HB 5138 as substituted, HB 5115, HB 481 as substituted, HB 3546, HB 493, and HB 4145 were reported favorably to the full Senate, with several also placed on the local and uncontested calendar. The committee also adopted committee substitutes for multiple bills, including HB 3909, HB 5081, HB 5624, HB 119, HB 5138, and HB 481. At the end, the chair noted another committee meeting would likely be needed before deadlines, possibly on a weekend, and recessed the committee subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• conversation that was brought up specifically from Senator Middleton, and this modification would exempt the Lobby
• conversation that was brought up specifically from Senator Middleton, and this modification would exempt the lobby
• Currently, the lobby compensation thresholds increase each year based on inflation, shifting more data
• modification will ensure that the reporting categories continue to provide effective disclosure of lobby
• Obviously register to lobby and all the other various filing requirements. So I move adoption.

Keywords: Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Ethics Commission, recommendations, Angelina River Authority, Natchez Valley Authority, public testimony, legislative session

Summary: The meeting of the Sunset Advisory Commission served as a concluding assembly for the current biennium, where various agencies were reviewed. Notably, the Commission focused on staff recommendations and modifications regarding the Angelina and Natchez River Authority, Lower Natchez Valley Authority, and Texas Ethics Commission. After discussing various modifications, the members voted unanimously on multiple recommendations aimed at improving operational efficiency and accountability within these agencies. The Chair emphasized the collaborative effort of the Commission members and staff, acknowledging their hard work throughout the biennium.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this modification would exempt the lobby compensation thresholds in Government Code 305.005 from
• Currently, the lobby compensation thresholds increase each year based on inflation, shifting more data
• modification will ensure that the reporting categories continue to provide effective disclosure of lobby
• to help guide the public on when the thresholds are met and what would require them to register to lobby
• guide the public on when the thresholds are met and what would require them to obviously register to lobby

Summary: The Sunset Advisory Commission met for its final meeting of the biennium, established a quorum, approved the December 11, 2024 minutes, and then voted on recommendations for several agencies reviewed earlier in the cycle. It adopted all recommendations for the Angelina and Nettus River Authority, the Lower Nettus Valley Authority, and the Trinity River Authority of Texas, with no modifications offered for those agencies. The Commission then considered the Texas Ethics Commission. Members adopted staff recommendations with modifications, including changes to lobby compensation thresholds and rounding of inflation adjustments. The Commission also adopted a series of new recommendations addressing TEC customer service staffing, late-filing penalties, post-election reporting penalties, waiver of penalties when notice cannot be shown, review of the “substantial compliance” standard, review of the “principal purpose” definition, more prominent public posting of delinquent penalties, and clearer training and guidance on filing and lobby-registration requirements. The Commission also adopted two previously omitted Texas Department of Criminal Justice recommendations, 6.5 and 6.6. By recorded vote, the Commission unanimously forwarded all recommendations adopted during the biennium to the 89th Legislature, with nine ayes. Sunset staff then reported on implementation of 2023 Sunset recommendations, saying the State Auditor found 89% of selected management actions fully implemented and Sunset staff found 68% of statutory and related changes fully implemented, with the remainder mostly in progress. The Commission also noted receipt of a January 6 evaluation of the Texas Lottery Commission, including a study of potential regulation of lottery ticket courier companies, but no further action was taken on that item. The meeting concluded with closing remarks and a motion to recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bondi's lobbying career should be disqualifying. This, too, was very unfair. Ms.
• Bondi disclosed her lobbying work and her clients to this committee beyond what she was even required
• Huawei during his time in private practice, nor did we hear concerns about former General Holder's lobbying
• Bondi's lobbying career. She was unable to point to anything specific.
• before the Trump White House and her foreign lobbying activities.

Transcript Highlights:

• lobby lobby to<00:33:47.279><c> the</c><00:33:47.440><c> House</c><00:33:47.760><c> chambers,</c><00
• </c> house and the lobby. house and the lobby.
• </c> Rebecca Beextol from previous lobbying Rebecca Beextol from previous lobbying efforts<01:09:22.799
• </c> So if that meeting was truly to lobby So if that meeting was truly to lobby legislators,<02:15:34.560
• They'll do anything. as lobbying at uh the little America. It as lobbying at uh the little America.

Keywords: 916, all

Bills: SB1637, SB1, HB300, SB2601, SB37, HB2011, HB3595, HB3071, SB12, HB3372, SB457, HB2067, SB2337, SB447, SB1506, SB1566, SB763, HB3556, SB13, SB2018, SB331, SB379, HB145, SB441, SB2878, HB2885, HB2017, HB5246, SB8, SB2308, SB1540, HB 119, SB1405, SB3059, SB15, SB568

Keywords: SB 1637, deadly conduct, Texas Penal Code, Section 22.05, firearm, gun, pointing a gun, recklessness presumption, peace officer, law enforcement, police, officer-involved shooting, use of force, justification, self-defense, defense of others, Chapter 9, criminal prosecution, Penal Code amendment, appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have President and would like to speak Mary Beth Derrickson with Lobby.
• My name is Mary Beth Derrickson, representing Lobby.
• With Lobby. Good morning, Madam Chair and members.
• My name is Mary Beth Derrickson, representing Lobby.
• Members, my name is Mary Beth Derrickson, representing Lobby.

Summary: The committee heard several higher education and K-12 bills centered on TOPS, school accountability, and curriculum alignment. It first welcomed University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s new president, Ramesh Kuluru, who spoke about student success, workforce alignment, and the university’s financial recovery. The committee then adopted amendments and reported HR 17 favorably, directing a study of TOPS return on investment with the Board of Regents, Louisiana Works, LED, and the Blanco Public Policy Center. Testimony from business and policy groups supported the study as a way to assess whether state financial aid is producing workforce and retention outcomes. Members then considered HB 385 by Rep. Bamberg, which would require repayment of TOPS awards under certain circumstances when students lose eligibility, with exemptions for hardship and a pathway into LCTCS or career-technical programs. The bill drew strong debate over whether merit scholarships should ever be repaid; opponents argued TOPS is earned for the semester and should only be lost going forward, while supporters emphasized taxpayer accountability. After amendments, the committee narrowly approved the bill by roll call vote, with Chair Schlegel casting the deciding yes to report it favorably as amended. The committee also unanimously reported HB 1058 favorably, which requires the Board of Regents to maintain a uniform data system for state financial assistance; independent colleges and business groups supported the measure as a way to improve accountability and analysis. The committee next heard HB 406 by Speaker Pro Tem Johnson, which asks the Department of Education to study the feasibility of moving oversight of interscholastic athletics to a more accountable model after a legislative study found widespread complaints about the private LHSAA’s transparency and consistency. Supporters said the bill is a cautious step toward reform and a possible 2028–2029 transition, while an LHSAA representative defended current audits and governance and opposed the premise of the bill. Despite objections, the committee reported HB 406 favorably. It then heard HB 787 by Rep. McMakin, as substituted, which would exempt non-public high school students from the TOPS computer science requirement; BESE and the Department of Education opposed the bill, saying it would separate diploma and TOPS requirements and create scheduling confusion, while Catholic school representatives said the requirement conflicts with their theology curriculum. McMakin asked to defer the bill for two weeks. Finally, the committee unanimously reported HB 1059 favorably, which aligns TOPS math requirements with BESE’s integrated math pathways, and began hearing HB 1021 by Rep. Egan on repayment of certain TOPS awards, though the transcript cuts off before that bill was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's move on to House Bill 412, relating to lobbying.
• law, and expands the definition of lobbying in the state lobbying law to include certain communications
• law, and expands the definition of lobbying in the state lobbying law to include certain communications
• That's a critical part of this bill: expanding the definition of lobbying in the state lobbying law to
• </c> awarded uh by unethical lobbying awarded uh by unethical lobbying Behavior<00:31:59.519><c> predominantly

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs held its first hearing of the 33rd Legislature and heard several measures, beginning with HB 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain purposes and direct the Office of Information Practices to adopt uniform rules. OIP supported the bill, saying it would help researchers access government records, while DLNR questioned whether the bill was necessary, raised concerns about costs and exemptions, and suggested a definition change regarding media. The Public First Law Center and other supporters said the bill would not remove existing exemptions or create new disclosure requirements, but would simply authorize rulemaking to create a clearer process for research access. Common Cause Hawaiʻi raised concern about including news media in the measure. The chair emphasized that the rulemaking process would allow agencies and the public to work through details, and the committee moved on without a recorded vote in the transcript. The committee then heard HB 411, which would create uniform administrative penalty procedures under the state ethics code and lobbyist law, and HB 412, which would expand lobbying definitions to cover certain communications with high-level executive officials about procurement and make some contracts voidable if awarded through unethical lobbying. The Ethics Commission supported HB 411 as an efficiency measure that would streamline the charge process without changing substantive rights, while HB 412 was described as a narrow transparency measure modeled on other states. The State Procurement Office warned that voiding contracts could cause delays, warranty issues, third-party complications, and higher reprocurement costs. The Ethics Commission responded that any contract revocation would be at the Attorney General’s discretion and likely reserved for egregious cases, and that the threat of voiding a contract would help deter noncompliance. The committee also heard HB 413, which clarifies that lobbyist campaign contribution prohibitions apply during periods when both houses of the Legislature are in session; the Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission both supported the bill and the Ethics Commission requested amendments to clarify jurisdiction between state and county lobbyist enforcement. Finally, the committee took up HB 149, which would require domestic and foreign corporations to report independent expenditures and political contributions to shareholders. The only testimony noted in the transcript was written comments from Matson, which said the requirement would be expensive and cumbersome and that the information is already publicly available through existing campaign finance reporting websites. No votes or final committee actions on the bills were recorded in the provided transcript.