Every year, local governments spend millions hiring lobbyists in the hope of influencing state-level policymaking, both before, during, and after each legislative session. These hired guns generally fall into 1 of 3 categories: external lobbyists (i.e. contract lobbyists); internal lobbyists (i.e. intergovernmental relations (IGR) staff); and publicly-funded pro-government associations (i.e. Texas Municipal League (TML) , Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA),  Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) etc.). While each category of lobbyist differs slightly in their type and function, each class seeks a similar end-goal—to expand the money and power available to government, which almost always comes at the expense of individual liberty.

Like many other local governmental entities, the city of Austin indulges in this practice to the detriment of the average person. According to its most recently adopted budget, city officials intend to spend more than $1.6 million this fiscal year. These funds are earmarked for the city’s IGR department, specifically to “ensure that the city’s interests are protected and enhanced through active involvement in the legislative process.” It’s unclear what portion of these funds are to be spent on state-level v. federal-level lobbying.

In addition to the city’s IGR department spending, it may also be putting additional money toward contracting with external lobbyists. However, those details are unclear since the budget seems to be missing key information required by HB 1495 (86R), which directs political subdivisions to include in proposed budget the amount appropriated for: “directly or indirectly influencing or attempting to influence the outcome of legislation or administrative action.” In an effort to gain clarity, the Foundation’s scholars have sent a Texas Public Information Act request to city officials for this data.

Whatever the case, the city’s known spending raises an important question: What does Austin hope to achieve with its lobbying expenditures? To answer that question, it’s helpful to examine the city’s legislative agenda, which puts forward the some of the following directives:

  • Oppose legislation seeking to limit city spending;
  • Oppose legislation restraining property tax growth;
  • Protect the city’s ability to regulate trees, billboards, short-term rentals, and more;
  • Support legislation to impose gun restrictions;
  • Promote the equity agenda; and
  • Preserve the practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying.

Are these goals really worth spending the public’s money on?