
Top Texas donor slams Speaker Burrows, House members after legislative setbacks
The Houston Chronicle is part of an initiative with ProPublica and The Texas Tribune to report on how power is wielded in Texas.
Leaders for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the biggest donor in Texas politics, say they have a simple strategy when trying to persuade state lawmakers: 'We never make enemies,' President Lee Parsley said in late April. 'We only make friends.'
But now that the Texas legislative session has concluded without lawmakers passing any of the group's three high priority bills, TLR is taking a decidedly different tact.
In a blistering letter to members, Parsley called out by name the lawmakers he said stifled TLR's agenda and all but promised to take them on in primary campaigns next March. He laid much of the blame on House Speaker Dustin Burrows' shoulders.
[Houston megadonor Dick Weekley and his group Texans for Lawsuit Reform are losing in the Legislature after 30 years of wins]
The group's political action committee 'must redouble our efforts to elect strong, ethical, legislators who value a civil justice system that has integrity,' Parsley wrote in his letter to the group's members last week.
Its signature priority, Senate Bill 30 – an effort to rein in medical costs in personal injury lawsuits – died after the House and Senate passed vastly different versions of the bill and could not reconcile the differences.
'I think it's fair to say we may look at backing some primary challengers,' Parsley said. 'We'll take a good look at what happened toward the end of session and decide how to engage politically, but the people who did not support TLR's bill fully are certainly people who will be a focus for us.'
The legislative strikeout on these civil justice bills marks a low point for TLR, which won massive rewrites of the Texas civil justice code in the 1990s and early 2000s, spending millions to elect like-minded lawmakers and lobby them to pass the legislation. At its height, the group – led by Houston's most prolific political donor, the homebuilder Richard Weekley – was largely seen as synonymous with the Texas Republican Party, positioning itself as the political voice of the state's business community.
The group's political action committee remains the top political spender in the state, spending $21.2 million on legislative races in 2024. The tone of its letter suggests the group could be on a warpath in the March primary elections. Instead of protecting incumbents, TLR could begin targeting members who bucked the group's wishes.
'It did feel a little strange because TLR has basically gotten everything they wanted for a long time now, and the one time it seems like they didn't, it feels like they're throwing a tantrum about it,' said Andrew Cates, a Democratic legislative lawyer and former lobbyist in Austin. 'Everybody else would have been licking their wounds and hanging back and trying to make nice.'
TLR's letter alleged Burrows placed skeptical lawmakers on the key committees charged with shepherding SB30. It also called out state Rep. Marc LaHood, R-San Antonio, the main holdout on the House committee that forced significant revisions to the legislation; and state Rep. Mitch Little, R-Lewisville, who helped win passage of an amendment that TLR said made the bill 'ineffective.' It named more than a dozen other Republican members as well, several of whom defeated TLR-backed candidates in last year's GOP primaries.
Cates said the group's criticism of Burrows was notable, since lobbying groups rarely take those kinds of disputes public. Burrows has been endorsed by President Donald Trump for another term, and speakers have broad power to block legislation in future sessions.
'The political capital is going to be really wasted if you come at him and miss,' Cates said.
When asked if TLR would support a primary candidate against the speaker, Parsley paused and said, 'Not ready to comment on that.'
Other lawmakers responded to the accusations with barbs of their own. 'Simply put, TLR lies,' LaHood wrote in a response on X.
Little said in an interview, 'Obviously, they were upset with the outcome and looking for people to blame or attack, but I'll just say on my part, I forgive them and I'm not offended by any of it. I understand that their policy agenda failed.'
Burrows' office did not respond to requests for comment. But Little said TLR's claim that Burrows led the effort to tank the legislation is 'not true in any way.'
This year, TLR pushed three bills: SB30, which advanced the farthest but was significantly watered down as the session wore on; SB39, which dealt with civil liability for trucking companies; and SB779, which would crack down on 'public nuisance' lawsuits that cities and counties sometimes file against companies on behalf of the public.
SB30 started off ambitious. The original draft, passed quickly by the Senate, would have required appellate courts to reduce or review large jury verdicts, capped medical costs by tying them to what Medicare pays out for services and combined several different lines of action for plaintiffs into one newly defined category of 'mental anguish.'
One by one, each of those measures were cut. Still, even the watered-down version of SB30 did not have enough votes to get out of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, said state Rep. Joe Moody, one of five Democrats on the 11-member committee. The bill looked like it would languish in the committee without a vote.
In its letter, TLR blamed Burrows for the committee rosters, saying his selections made it more difficult to pass the legislation. But Moody said it was Burrows who revived the bill, wanting to ensure that at least some portion of TLR's agenda made it to the House floor.
On May 20, Burrows urged the committee members to renew discussions on SB30 and come up with a version that they could agree on, Moody recalled. What resulted was a 12-hour negotiation that Little was also asked to join, though he was not a member of the committee.
The outcome of that meeting was a stripped-down bill that mainly would do one thing: require judges to automatically admit certain benchmarks to establish reasonable medical charges. The bill passed through the committee, with Moody and LaHood in support.
TLR's letter also blasted LaHood's performance on the committee, saying it was concerned from the start that he 'was not philosophically aligned with the business community, and we were right.' It accused LaHood of fleeing the committee meeting to avoid having to vote on TLR's other two bills, meaning 'both bills would die in committee.'
'I did not 'flee' the JCJN committee room after SB30 was voted out,' LaHood wrote in response, saying his opposition to those bills was clear. 'As the Chairman knew, I left to lay out a bill in another committee. Afterward, I returned, and we continued to vote out more bills… I do not run from a fight or a tough vote.'
LaHood said he was 'appalled by the breadth of what TLR was attempting to codify into law,' and he said 'TLR's ham-fisted attempt to shirk responsibility for their poorly drafted, poorly conceived bills' impugned his character along with Burrows, Little and the entire House chamber.
State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, who chaired the committee, put out a statement clarifying the committee meeting. He said he knew LaHood's position, which meant the bills did not have the votes to pass, and decided to shelf the bills.
'That was my decision and my decision alone,' Leach said.
Committee records back up that account. They show that LaHood temporarily left the meeting and that, in his absence, two other bills failed because they did not get a majority vote, but after LaHood returned, Leach called them up for a vote again – and both passed.
The other lawmaker to draw TLR's ire was Little. After the revised version of SB30 advanced to the House floor, TLR suffered one final defeat. Moody and Little were concerned about making evidence automatically admissible, since that requirement is rare in Texas law.
On the floor, they introduced an amendment that would allow judges to exercise some discretion about whether to admit the evidence. For example, they would be able to consider whether the evidence was relevant to their specific case. TLR described it as a 'gutting amendment.'
The group accused Little of reversing course after negotiating the bill that passed the committee. The bill 'would be killed by' Little, Parsley wrote.
Moody and Little both said that was not true; they had made it clear the issue was not totally resolved during those negotiations, both lawmakers said. Little said he supported the change out of 'loyalty to the law and the application of the rules of evidence.'
The House passed the amendment on a razor thin margin, 72-70, gutting the bill in TLR's eyes. Little said the vote showed that the House probably did not have the votes to pass the bill without the amendment.
'There was still one chance to save the bill,' Parsley wrote, referring to the conference committee charged with reconciling differences in the House and Senate versions. But Burrows put Little on the committee as the swing vote, ensuring the amendment would remain, he said.
The House lawmakers refused to cut the amendment, and the bill died. Two days after lawmakers adjourned, TLR sent out its strongly worded letter.
If TLR decides to go after the 17 GOP lawmakers who supported the amendment, it could open a new rift among House Republicans. That cohort is coming off a grueling 2024 primary season fought over issues like Gov. Greg Abbott's school voucher plan and Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment.
TLR invested $14 million in the primary cycle last year, but it was on the losing side of many of those campaigns, spending roughly $6 million to back incumbents in races they lost.
Among the large freshman bloc that swept into office in those campaigns, 10 cast votes against TLR by backing Moody's amendment. Those candidates had already defeated TLR's money in one primary and may have been less beholden to them than those in the past. LaHood and Little were among them.
TLR gave $320,000 to Little's opponent, Kronda Thimesch, and $99,500 to former state Rep. Steve Allison, who lost to LaHood. The political action committee, however, gave money to LaHood for his general election campaign.
The group's single biggest beneficiary during the primary campaign was Jeff Bauknight, doling out nearly $1 million to back his campaign for a house seat in Victoria. He lost to state Rep. AJ Louderback, R-Victoria – who voted for Moody's amendment.
State Reps. Andy Hopper, Shelley Luther, Brent Money, Mike Olcott, Katrina Pierson and Wes Virdell all were namechecked in TLR's letter of what it called a 'bad session.' Each beat TLR-backed candidates in their primary campaigns last year. Others listed by TLR included veteran members who TLR has supported in the past.
TLR's losses last primary season may portend trouble in trying to target members who opposed them this year. But the group still has a massive war chest of $26.8 million, according to campaign finance records.
It usually reports raising about $6 million after a legislative session wraps up. It will have to disclose how much more money it has raised this year in July.
'We understand the realities of Texas politics. I think that what we're doing is the right thing.' Parsley said. 'If the litigation environment remains the same for a long period of time, they will all realize that we were right about this all along, and they will wish they'd paid more attention to us.'
Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer.
Get tickets.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House
The Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' is facing serious headwinds in the House with The Hill learning that at least six House Republicans are currently a 'no' on the framework, a daunting sign for GOP leadership as the Senate races towards a vote. Those six House Republicans, some of whom requested anonymity, are enough opposition to tank the package, as GOP leaders grapple with a razor-thin majority. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was one of two GOP lawmakers to oppose the House version of the bill last month, is also likely to oppose the Senate's edition, deepening the pocket of resistance in the lower chamber. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still clear the legislation, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. 'I support the reasonable provisions in H.R. 1 that protect Medicaid's long-term viability and ensure the program continues to serve our most vulnerable, but I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments, or any provisions that punish expansion states,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) wrote in a statement on Saturday. 'President Trump was clear when he said to root out our waste, fraud, and abuse without cutting Medicaid and I wholeheartedly agree,' he continued. 'I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 — otherwise I will vote no.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) told The Hill that he is also opposed to the bill because of the Medicaid provider tax provision. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) is currently a 'no' on the measure because of the Medicaid language, rollback of solar energy credits and public lands provisions, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, told The Hill that he is against the current version of the package because of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap proposal. The legislation would increase the currently $10,000 SALT cap to $40,000 for individuals making $500,000 or less for five years, then snap back to the original number. 'While I support the President's broader agenda, how could I support the same unfair $10k SALT cap I've spent years criticizing?' LaLota said. 'A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote.' It is not, however, just moderates who are signaling issues with the Senate bill: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, posted an ominous message on X that suggested he was not pleased with the package. 'I will not negotiate via X. But it's important to know that jamming us with a bill before we've had any chance to review the implications of major changes & re-writes, fluid scores, a high likelihood of violating the house framework (deficits) , & tons of swamp buy-offs is bad,' he wrote. The opposition is rising to the surface as Senate Republicans inch closer to holding an initial vote on the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would officially kick off the consideration process and eventually tee up a final vote in the House. It remains unclear, however, if Senate GOP leaders have the votes to move forward. If the motion to proceed passes by a simple majority, the chamber would hold a series of unlimited amendment votes called a vote-a-rama, which could result in changes to the measure. Senate GOP leaders are also still talking to holdouts and could make changes to the bill as written. In the meantime, House Republicans — beginning to review the revised Senate text unveiled overnight — are expressing resistance to the measure, prompting serious questions about whether top GOP lawmakers will be able to enact the legislation by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) convened a call with the House Republican Conference Saturday afternoon and urged lawmakers to keep their concerns with the Senate bill private, and instead speak directly with their senators and the White House, two sources told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told members that it is unlikely they will have to return to Washington on Monday, the sources said. Tuesday or Wednesday is more realistic, he told lawmakers. One source told The Hill that the call was brief and leadership did not take questions. The main qualm among House Republicans appears to be the Medicaid language in the bill. The Senate's legislation includes a proposal that would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The decrease was initially supposed to begin in 2027, with a 0.5 percent phase down annually, but Senate Republicans overnight changed the text to delay the implementation to 2028. The upper chamber also inserted a provision to create a $25 billion rural hospital relief fund that would be distributed over five years to assuage those concerns. The changes, however, do not seem to be solving all of the GOP's problems, with House Republicans still voicing opposition to the language. Aside from Medicaid, the Senate bill's rollback of green-energy tax credits is an issue for some House Republicans. The revised legislation for the upper chamber slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) would not say how he plans to vote on the bill, but signaled that he is not happy with the Medicaid provisions and green-energy tax credit language. 'Instead of improving the Medicaid and energy portions of [the] House bill it appears the Senate went backwards,' he told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump, 3 GOP senators play golf ahead of Saturday's push for megabill vote
As Senate wrestled with whether to begin debate on President Donald Trump's megabill, a few key Republican allies spent part of the afternoon golfing with the president at his nearby club in Northern Virginia. Trump, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and GOP Sens. Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina played golf a few hours before the Senate voted to debate the so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Live updates: It's go time for Senate on Trump's megabill. Do they have the votes? Graham posted a photo of himself and Trump on social media as gave the camera a thumbs up. Graham said in a post that he partnered with Trump and Paul to beat Schmitt and Ratcliffe. "Proud to announce no casualties," Graham wrote. "A lot of fun! Big Beautiful Bill on the way." Schmitt posted a similar photo of himself and the president, writing "Big week for President Trump and he crushed it on the golf course this morning as well." Looking forward to beginning the One Big Beautiful Bill the day with @POTUS and thanked him for his Go! White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters around 2 p.m. that the president was wrapping up lunch and would soon depart the course, located about 25 miles from the White House. Senate Republican leaders launched the debate June 28 that is expected to culminate with a vote June 29 or 30 on the 990-page bill. While Democrats are all expected to vote no on the massive legislative package, the open question going into the debate is whether enough Republicans will end up supporting the Senate's version, which would send it back to the House. Trump has asked Congress to send him the completed bill to sign by July 4. The megabill is stuffed with tax cuts, Medicaid reforms and border security funding, containing several signature campaign promises from Trump and the Republican party. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.