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.”
A gutted bill
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.
The biggest donor
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.”
