Texas House Bill HB1923

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/28/11
• Refer: 3/10/11

Caption

Relating to contract requirements for federal-level government relations consultants and agencies or political subdivisions of this state; providing a civil penalty.

Impact

The introduction of HB 1923 is expected to affect how state agencies engage with federal-level consultants, creating a more structured contractual framework. By enforcing strict reporting requirements, the bill seeks to ensure that state entities account for their use of government relations services, focusing on the compensation paid, the issues being addressed, and requiring compliance to enhance the integrity of public administration. This change aligns with a broader trend toward increased scrutiny and regulation of lobbying activities to reduce potential corruption and misuse of state funds.

Summary

House Bill 1923 establishes new contract requirements for federal-level government relations consultants who work with state agencies or political subdivisions in Texas. The legislation aims to enhance transparency and accountability by mandating that consultants report various contract details to the state's Office of State-Federal Relations. Additionally, the bill introduces civil penalties for noncompliance, specifically imposing fines of $1,000 for each day a consultant fails to adhere to the reporting requirements. This legislation aims to regulate and oversee the activities of lobbyists working at the federal level, as per definitions established in federal law.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1923 appears largely supportive among those advocating for government transparency and accountability. Proponents assert that the bill is a necessary step in safeguarding public interest by ensuring that taxpayer money is spent judiciously and that the actions of consultants are subject to oversight. On the other hand, some opponents may argue that the bill could impose burdensome regulations on consultants and agencies, potentially limiting the scope of necessary engagement with federal entities.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the impact of the billing and reporting requirements on smaller consultants who may find compliance challenging. Critics may also argue that the bill represents an additional layer of bureaucracy that could deter qualified consultants from working with state agencies. The debate reflects broader concerns about the balance between necessary oversight and maintaining an efficient means of engaging with government relations consultants.